JUDGMENT : A.K. JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J. As these batch of Land Acquisition Appeals pertain to the acquisition for the widening of the Karaparamba – Kalluthankadavu Road in Calicut district, they are taken up for consideration together and disposed by this common judgment. 2. The batch of appeals before us comprise of 14 appeals and the details of the same are as given below : Sl. No. LAA No. LAR No. Extent (in Ares) Sy. No. 4(1) Notification Award by LAO (Per Cent) Award by Reference Court (Per Cent) 1 88/2016 178/2013 0.64 266/3 06.01.2011 Rs.3,53,394/- Rs.6,18,440/- 2 148/2016 148/2013 2.47 247/1 06.01.2011 Rs.3,53,394/- Rs.6,18,440/- 3 192/2016 153/2013 1.32 266/3 06.01.2011 Rs.3,53,394/- Rs.6,18,440/- 4 193/2016 164/2013 0.075 5-6-167/7 06.01.2011 Rs.3,53,394/- Rs.6,18,440/- 5 200/2016 152/2013 0.17 272/1 06.01.2011 Rs.3,53,394/- Rs.6,18,440/- 6 223/2016 215/2013 0.08 322/2 10.12.2010 Rs.3,53,394/- Rs.6,18,440/- 7 276/2016 200/2013 2.18 2-6-250/2 06.01.2011 Rs.3,53,394/- Rs.6,18,440/- 8 338/2016 141/2013 1.23 615/10 06.01.2011 Rs.3,53,394/- Rs.6,18,440/- 9 353/2016 142/2013 1.17 615/10 06.01.2011 Rs.3,53,394/- Rs.6,18,440/- 10 23/2019 167/2013 2.59 2-6-242/2 06.01.2011 Rs.3,53,394/- Rs.6,18,440/- 11 71/2019 288/2014 0.83 2-6-246/1 06.01.2011 Rs.3,53,394/- Rs.6,18,440/- 12 72/2019 257/2013 0.22 2-6-245/1 06.01.2011 Rs.3,53,394/- Rs.6,18,440/- 13 91/2019 258/2013 1.04 2-6-246/1 06.01.2011 Rs.3,53,394/- Rs.6,18,440/- 14 378/2015 203/2013 1.73 27-2-8 27-2-9 27-2-10 10.12.2010 Rs.3,92,660/- Rs.7,85,320/- 3. In all the Land Acquisition Appeals, save LAA No.378 of 2015, the Section 4(1) notification was published on 06.11.2011. In LAA No.378 of 2015, the notification was published on 10.12.2010. The properties acquired all lie in close proximity to each other, predominantly by the side of the aforementioned road (Karaparamba – Kalluthankadavu Road) in the stretch between Karaparamba junction and Eranhipaalam junction and further down towards Arayidathupalam junction. It is not in dispute that the properties in question are all situated in a commercially important area in Calicut district. 4. The Land Acquisition Officer determined the market value of the acquired properties in respect of all the appeals aforementioned, save LAA 378 of 2015, at Rs.3,53,394/- per cent. In the case of the property acquired in LAA No.378 of 2015, he fixed the market value at Rs.3,92,660/- per cent. While doing so, the Land Acquisition Officer placed reliance on the sale deed No.1823 of 2010 dated 24.05.2010 of Chevayoor Sub Registry. The said property is situated almost 1½ kilometers east of the acquired lands on the southern side of the Medical College Road. While doing so, the Land Acquisition Officer placed reliance on the sale deed No.1823 of 2010 dated 24.05.2010 of Chevayoor Sub Registry. The said property is situated almost 1½ kilometers east of the acquired lands on the southern side of the Medical College Road. The Commission Reports produced before the Reference Court indicate that the said land was a residential area with no commercial establishments nearby. As against that, the Commission Reports also revealed that the acquired properties were situated near to a Homoeo College, Regional Passport Office, Provident Fund Office, Malabar Devaswom Board Office, Co-operative Tribunal, the Kozhikode District Co-operative Hospital, Malabar Hospital, ESI Hospital, Special Court for Maradu Cases, Wakf Tribunal, Educational Institutions, Nationalised Banks, Post Offices etc. and further, the properties had direct road access with scope for future development. It was under these circumstances that the claimants found the market value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer to be abysmally low and approached the Reference Court for an enhancement of the compensation. 5. Before the Reference Court, various sale exemplars were produced by the claimants to discharge their burden of proof in relation to the market value of the properties acquired from them. While various documents were considered by the Reference Court, the eventual enhancement of market value effected by the Court was not based on any particular sale exemplar but more on a guess work. As a result, we are not in a position to ascertain the basis for the fixation of the enhanced market value of Rs.6,18,440/- and Rs.6,18,750/- per cent as the market value of the acquired properties in all the appeals, save LAA No.378 of 2015. In the last mentioned appeal, in a similar fashion, and without revealing the basis for such fixation, the Reference Court enhanced the market value of the land by 100% and fixed the market value at Rs.7,85,320/- per cent. It is aggrieved by the said limited enhancement and claiming a higher compensation that the claimants are now before us through these appeals. 6. We have heard Sri. P.Martin Jose, Sri.Vinod Singh Cheriyan and Sri.Jeswin P. Varghese, appearing on behalf of the appellants, and also Sri. T.K.Shajahan, the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 7. It is aggrieved by the said limited enhancement and claiming a higher compensation that the claimants are now before us through these appeals. 6. We have heard Sri. P.Martin Jose, Sri.Vinod Singh Cheriyan and Sri.Jeswin P. Varghese, appearing on behalf of the appellants, and also Sri. T.K.Shajahan, the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 7. On a consideration of the rival submissions and on a perusal of the Trial Court Records, which are made available before us, we are of the view that the judgments of the Reference Court impugned in these appeals require to be interfered with. It is, no doubt, true that in matters of fixation of market value of the properties acquired in a land acquisition proceedings, there are several limitations that are faced by an adjudicatory body, while arriving at the market value of the acquired properties, and the compensation that is to be ultimately paid in respect of the said property. The exercise of estimating the market value of the acquired properties necessarily involves an element of guess work. However, as has been pointed out by the Supreme Court on many an occasion, and quite recently in New Okhla Industrial Development Authority ( NOIDA) v. Harnand Singh (deceased) Through Lrs and Others [(2024) SCC Online SC 1691], the exercise of “guesstimation” has also to conform to a certain rationale. In other words, there cannot be an arbitrary fixation of market value based on no evidence. The observations of the Supreme Court in the NOIDA Case (supra) are significant and read as follows: E.1.2. Applicability and use of the principle of guesstimation 31. Guesstimation is a heuristic device that enables the court, in the absence of direct evidence and relevant sale exemplars, to make a reasonable and informed guess or estimation of the market value of the land under acquisition, and concomitantly the compensation payable by the appropriate Government. In that sense, guesstimation hinges on the Court’s ability to exercise informed judgment and expertise in assessing the market value of land, especially when the evidence does not tender a straightforward answer. 32. This principle accentuates the fundamental understanding that determining compensation for land is not a matter of exact science but involves a significant element of estimation. In that sense, guesstimation hinges on the Court’s ability to exercise informed judgment and expertise in assessing the market value of land, especially when the evidence does not tender a straightforward answer. 32. This principle accentuates the fundamental understanding that determining compensation for land is not a matter of exact science but involves a significant element of estimation. Indeed, this holds true for valuation of land in general, which is affected by a multitude of factors such as its location, surrounding market conditions, feasible uses etc. Accordingly, while evidence and calculations can aid in estimating the land value, they ultimately serve as tools for approximation rather than precision. Instead, land valuation—and consequently the affixation of compensation— remains an exercise of informed estimation, requiring the integration of diverse data points and professional judgment concerning subjective, intangible and dynamic elements. Pursing a single precise valuation or compensation figure is bound to be unjust, representing a rigid approach and a procrustean endeavour at best. 33. Having said that, it is important to clarify that the process of determining compensation is not entirely subjective. While it may not be possible to arrive at a definitive figure, the exercise is still epistemologically objective in so far as it is grounded in evidence and the consideration of relevant factors. In case the compensation is fixed agnostically to the factors affecting the valuation of the land, the resultant figure might be arbitrary and may fail to adequately compensate the landowner for the expropriated land. Hence, while some subjectivity may exist in fixing the final figure based on these factors, the sliding scale of judicial discretion cannot be extended to mere speculation. 34. Accordingly, while the Court can use the principle of guesstimation in reasonably estimating the value of land in the absence of direct evidence, the exercise ought not to be purely hypothetical. Instead, the Court must embrace a holistic view and consider all relevant factors and existing evidence, even if not directly comparable, to arrive at a fair determination of compensation. Trishala Jain v. State of Uttaranchal , summarizes these yardsticks as follows: “65. It will be appropriate for us to state certain principles controlling the application of “guesstimate”: (a) Wherever the evidence produced by the parties is not sufficient to determine the compensation with exactitude, this principle can be resorted to. Trishala Jain v. State of Uttaranchal , summarizes these yardsticks as follows: “65. It will be appropriate for us to state certain principles controlling the application of “guesstimate”: (a) Wherever the evidence produced by the parties is not sufficient to determine the compensation with exactitude, this principle can be resorted to. (b) Discretion of the court in applying guesswork to the facts of a given case is not unfettered but has to be reasonable and should have a connection to the data on record produced by the parties by way of evidence. Further, this entire exercise has to be within the limitations specified under Sections 23 and 24 of the Act and cannot be made in detriment thereto.” 35. Broadly, such relevant factors can be divided into three categories: i. Characteristics of the land: The valuation of land is undeniably influenced by its inherent characteristics. A parcel of land endowed with advantageous features that enhance its accessibility and usability tends to command higher market price and thus, a greater valuation in comparison to lands lacking such attributes. Key factors contributing to such features include connectivity via roads and other means of transportation, the size and shape of the land, availability of essential utilities such as electricity and water, the evenness or levelling of the land’s surface, width of frontage, and nature and status of the surrounding area etc.; ii. Future potentiality of the land: In addition to its characteristics, the valuation of land is also influenced by its potentiality. Lands with the potential to be used for commercial or residential purposes; that are located in or near a developed area; or which are proximate to tourist destinations, are perceived to hold greater value in the future. Consequently, landowners may anticipate higher future prices and accordingly demand higher sale prices compared to lands lacking these attributes. Accordingly, these features also lead to an increase in valuation; and iii. Factors denoting market sentiment: Market sentiments are powerful drivers of land valuation. Even if a particular piece of land possesses all desirable features, its valuation can still suffer if the market conditions at the time of publication of the notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act were unfavourable. Factors such as economic recessions, political instability, speculative investments or real estate crisis can impact the perceived value of the land. Even if a particular piece of land possesses all desirable features, its valuation can still suffer if the market conditions at the time of publication of the notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act were unfavourable. Factors such as economic recessions, political instability, speculative investments or real estate crisis can impact the perceived value of the land. Thus, these extraneous economic and political factors must also be considered when assessing land valuation.” It is by keeping in mind the above principle that we have to now examine the documents that were available before the Reference Court and fix a reasonable amount representing the market value of the acquired properties. 8. On a perusal of the documents considered by the Reference Court, we find that principally we need to consider only two documents; namely, the basic sale deed No.1823 of 2010 dated 24.05.2010 that was taken into consideration by the Land Acquisition Officer and; Ext.A10 document, which is a certified copy of an assignment deed (Document No.2698/2004 of SRO West Hill dated 23.08.2004). As already noticed, the property covered by the base document relied upon by the Land Acquisition Officer was not a comparable one since it was situated in a location which do not have the same features as the location, where the properties in these appeals were situated. The property in Ext.A10 document, however, is one that is situated on the side of the East Hill – Balusserry Road, in close proximity to the Karaparamba Junction. The Commission Reports clearly reveal the proximity of the said property to the properties acquired in connection with the present acquisition. We feel, therefore, that the value shown in the said document would offer a more reliable basis for computing the market value of the properties acquired. Needless to say, we would have to arrive at the value of the acquired properties by tweaking the market value shown in Ext.A10 document and making the necessary adjustments for approximating it to the value of the acquired properties. 9. To begin with, we have to adjust the market value of the property in Ext.A10 document (Rs.3,75,000/- per cent in 2004) to arrive at its equivalent value in 2010 the year of the Section 4(1) notification in the instant appeals. Going by the judgment of the Supreme Court in General Manager, Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd v. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel & Anr. Going by the judgment of the Supreme Court in General Manager, Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd v. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel & Anr. [ (2008) 14 SCC 745 ] we find that in an urban area, the market value arrived at for a property in 2004 can be adjusted to arrive at the realistic market value in 2010 by applying an incremental factor of 15% compounded yearly for a period of five years. This would be, because, although the period that elapsed between the execution of Ext.A10 document and the date of the publication of Section 4(1) notification is six years, the 1 st year would have to be excluded for the purposes of the aforementioned computation. On applying a 15% escalation for the period of five years, the market value of Rs.3,75,000/- in 2004 would be Rs.7,54,259/- (rounded to Rs.7,55,000/- per cent) in 2010. We also note from the certified copy of a registered Jenm Assignment Deed No.373/2007 of SRO, Kozhikode dated 30.03.2007, that was produced as Ext.A1 before the Reference Court in LAA No.378 of 2015, that the property covered therein comprised on an extent of 27.29 cents of land in Kasaba Village, which was sold for a consideration of Rs.18,50,000/- per cent. The said property now houses a Mall, by name “RP Mall” and is situated just opposite to the Moffussil Bus Stand, which is in the heart of the City. Although the said sale exemplar was produced before the Reference Court to suggest that it pertains to a similar land as the acquired lands, the Reference Court did not accept the said exemplar for fixing the market value of the acquired land. The Reference Court probably thought that the market value shown in Ext.A1 document was an unusually exorbitant one and was not reflective of the general market value of properties in the vicinity, albeit the fact that the property was situated in a commercial area. The Reference Court, however, found that since the property in LAA No.378 of 2015 was situated at the Karaparamba Junction, certain incremental amounts had to be fixed for the said property when compared to the other properties that were acquired in connection with the same notification. The Reference Court, however, found that since the property in LAA No.378 of 2015 was situated at the Karaparamba Junction, certain incremental amounts had to be fixed for the said property when compared to the other properties that were acquired in connection with the same notification. It was, therefore, that while the amount of Rs.6,18,440/- / Rs.6,18,750/- were fixed by the Reference Court as the market value of the properties involved in all the other appeals, the market value for the property involved in LAA No.378 of 2015 was fixed at Rs.7,85,320/-. 10. Returning to the exercise that has now to be carried out by us for the purposes of considering the claim of the appellants herein for enhancement of the market value fixed by the Reference Court, we are of the view that the market value of the acquired properties can be fixed at a level between the arrived value of the property covered by Ext.A10 document dated 23.08.2004 (Rs.7,55,000/- per cent) and Rs.18,50,000/- per cent, which is the price obtaining in Ext.A10 document dated 30.03.2007 for the property therein. When we adopt the average of the two figures mentioned above, we arrived at a figure of Rs.13,02,500/-. Inasmuch as Ext.A1 document was relied upon by the appellant in LAA No.378 of 2015, we are of the view that the said figure of Rs.13,02,500/- per cent can be fixed as the market value of the property acquired in the said appeal. 11. As regards the other properties that were acquired and which are covered by the other appeals, we feel that we can apply a reduction factor, similar to what was adopted by the Land Acquisition Officer at first instance, while fixing the market value of the said properties. As already noticed above, the Land Acquisition Officer had adopted a figure, which was 10% lower than the market value fixed for the property in LAA No.378 of 2015 at first instance. Applying the same rationale, when we reduce the market value fixed for the property in LAA No.378 of 2015 (Rs.13,02,500/-) by 10%, we arrive at the figure of Rs.11,72,250/- (rounded to Rs.11,75,000/-) per cent. The said figure of Rs.11,75,000/- per cent is thus fixed as the market value of the properties in all the other appeals ie. Other than LAA No.378 of 2015. 12. The said figure of Rs.11,75,000/- per cent is thus fixed as the market value of the properties in all the other appeals ie. Other than LAA No.378 of 2015. 12. These appeals are, therefore, allowed by fixing the market value of the acquired properties as Rs.11,75,000/- per cent in all the appeals, save LAA No.378 of 2015. In the case of LAA No.378 of 2015, the market value is fixed at Rs.13,02,500/- per cent. The compensation due to the claimants/appellants shall be computed accordingly. The appellants shall also be entitled to the statutory benefits and proportionate costs that flow from the revised fixation of the market value. We might also add that such of the appellants, who are required to pay balance court fees, taking note of the revised fixation of market value, shall pay the same as a precondition for obtaining the decree drawn up pursuant to the revised fixation of market value. Further, in those cases where appeals were filed with a delay, the appellants will not be entitled to interest for the period of delay.