JUDGMENT : Vakiti Ramakrishna Reddy, J. This Appeal filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), is directed against the order and decree dated 16.04.2007 passed in O.P. No. 63 of 2002 on the file of the II Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Warangal (hereinafter referred to as the “Reference Court”). 2. By the impugned order, the Reference Court enhanced the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer (for short, “LAO”) in respect of the acquired lands from Rs.16,900/- per acre to Rs.22,500/- per acre. Aggrieved by the quantum of such marginal enhancement made by the Reference Court and seeking further increase in compensation, the claimants/land owners have preferred the present Appeal. I . BRIEF FACTS 3. The Land to an extent of Ac.3.34 gts. in Sy. No. 229 of Dharmapur Village, Dharmasagar Mandal of Warangal District was acquired for the purpose of construction and submergence of a check dam across stream near Dharmapur Village of Dharmasagar Mandal. II. NOTIFICATION AND AWARD: 4. A notification under section 4(1) of the Act was published on 29.10.2001, pursuant thereto, notices under sections 9(3) and 10 of the Act, were issued. An award enquiry was thereafter conducted in accordance with law. 5. Subsequently, the LAO passed an award dated 28.06.2002, fixing the market value of the acquired lands at Rs. 16,900/- per acre. Not being satisfied with the said compensation, the claimants sought a reference under Section 18 of the Act, which came to be numbered as O.P. No. 63 of 2002 before the Reference Court. III. POINT FOR CONSIDERATION BEFORE THE REFERENCE COURT: 6. The Reference Court, upon the pleadings, and material placed before it, framed the following Point for determination: “Whether the market value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer is inadequate, if so, what is the reasonable market value to be fixed for the acquired land?” IV. EVIDENCE: 7. To substantiate their claim for higher compensation, the claimants examined PWs 1 and 2 and got marked Ex. A1 (certified copy of a sale deed), on their behalf. 8. On behalf of the respondent-State, RW1 was examined and Exhibits B1 and B2 were marked. V. FINDINGS OF THE REFERENCE COURT: 9. EVIDENCE: 7. To substantiate their claim for higher compensation, the claimants examined PWs 1 and 2 and got marked Ex. A1 (certified copy of a sale deed), on their behalf. 8. On behalf of the respondent-State, RW1 was examined and Exhibits B1 and B2 were marked. V. FINDINGS OF THE REFERENCE COURT: 9. The learned Reference Court, upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, observed in the impugned order that though PW1 claimed to have been earning a net income of Rs.20,000/- per acre, per annum from commercial crops such as cotton, chillies, banana, and tobacco, no documentary proof such as crop yield records, sales receipts, or accounts was produced to substantiate such claim. Likewise, PW2 admitted in cross-examination that Ex. A1, the sale deed relied upon by the appellants pertained to Nashkal Village and not to Dharmapur Village, where the acquired lands are situated. 10. Nevertheless, the learned Reference Court took note of the fact that the acquired lands were fertile, irrigated, and capable of raising commercial crops, which indicated their higher potential value compared to dry lands. The learned Reference Court also found that agriculture was the only source of livelihood for the claimants, and that the acquisition of their lands had deprived them of their means of sustenance. 11. The learned Reference Court further noted that taking into account the fertility, potentiality, and location of the lands, as well as the compensation fixed by Civil Courts in similar acquisitions, the value determined by the LAO was on the lower side. Therefore, the learned Reference Court found it just and reasonable to enhance the market value of the acquired lands from Rs.16,900/- to Rs.22,500/- per acre. 12. The Court further directed payment of statutory benefits under the Act, namely 30% solatium, 12% additional market value from the date of 4(1) Notification till the date of award or possession (whichever earlier), interest at 9% per annum for the first year from the date of possession and 15% per annum thereafter till realization, together with interest on solatium and additional market value. 13. Consequently, the Reference was allowed enhancing the market value of the acquired lands from Rs.16,900/- per acre to Rs.22,500/- per acre. 14. Being aggrieved by the order dated 16.04.2007 passed by the Reference Court, the claimants have preferred the present Appeal for further enhancement. VI. SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES: A) Contentions of the Appellants (Claimants): 15. 13. Consequently, the Reference was allowed enhancing the market value of the acquired lands from Rs.16,900/- per acre to Rs.22,500/- per acre. 14. Being aggrieved by the order dated 16.04.2007 passed by the Reference Court, the claimants have preferred the present Appeal for further enhancement. VI. SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES: A) Contentions of the Appellants (Claimants): 15. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the Reference Court erred in not placing reliance upon Ex. A1, the certified copy of the sale deed bearing Document No.153 of 1994 dated 09.05.1994, under which one Acre of land was sold for Rs.1,42,500/-. It is further contended that the acquired lands are abutting and similar in nature and fertility to the land covered under Ex. A1, and are situated close to the National Highway connecting Hyderabad and Warangal. Hence, the Reference Court, erred in not fixing the market value of the acquired lands in accordance with the rate reflected under Ex. A1. 16. The learned counsel for the appellants further contended that the Reference Court erred in not considering documentary evidence adduced by the respondent i.e., the Award under Ex.B2, wherein the prevailing market value was shown as Rs.90,000/- per acre. It is urged that the Reference Court ought to have adopted the said rate while determining compensation, instead of fixing a much lesser value. The learned counsel for the appellants further contended that the Reference Court failed to appreciate the documentary and oral evidence available on record, which clearly establishes that the acquired lands were of high potential and capable of yielding substantial income. 17. It is further contend that the Reference Court failed to consider that the land owner was earning an annual net income of Rs.25,000/- per acre after deducting cultivation expenses, which demonstrates the high fertility and commercial potential of the acquired lands. The appellants further contend that the market value should have been fixed at Rs.1,50,000/- per acre in accordance with the evidence on record. The appellants also contend that the Reference Court erred in not awarding interest on all components of compensation, including solatium and additional market value, thereby rendering the award inequitable and contrary to law. 18. On the basis of the aforesaid submissions, the Learned Counsel for the appellants has prayed that, there being merit in the appeal, the same may be allowed, by further enhancing the compensation. B) Contentions of the Respondent (State/LAO): 19. 18. On the basis of the aforesaid submissions, the Learned Counsel for the appellants has prayed that, there being merit in the appeal, the same may be allowed, by further enhancing the compensation. B) Contentions of the Respondent (State/LAO): 19. The learned Government Pleader for Appeals, appearing on behalf of the Respondent, contended that the LAO had fixed the market value at Rs.16,900/- per acre, after a detailed inspection and consideration of the physical features, potentiality, fertility, and existing conditions of the acquired lands, including the registered sale transactions of the same village for the preceding three years. The fixation, it was submitted, was based on objective assessment and available sale statistics, ensuring that the compensation reflected the fair market value of the lands at the time of acquisition and was neither arbitrary nor unreasonable. 20. It is further contended that the appellants failed to produce any documentary evidence to substantiate their claim for enhancement or for compensation towards commercial crops as alleged in their claim petition. Hence, the market value fixed by the LAO as enhanced by the learned Reference Court is reasonable, as such, the appellants are not entitled for any enhancement of compensation and there being no merit in the present appeal, the same deserves to be dismissed. VII. POINTS FOR DETERMINATION: 21. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and having carefully examined the material placed on record, the following points arise for determination in this Appeal: (i) Whether the Reference Court was justified in fixing the market value of the acquired lands at Rs.22,500/- per Acre, or whether the appellants are entitled to further enhancement in view of the evidence adduced under Exs.A1 and B2? (ii) Whether the Reference Court failed to properly appreciate the documentary and oral evidence relating to the fertility, potentiality, and income-yielding capacity of the acquired lands? (iii) To what relief, if any, are the claimants/appellants entitled? VIII. COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF COMPENSATION: 22. For proper appreciation, the comparative chart of compensation, as awarded by the LAO and as enhanced by the Reference Court, is tabulated as under: Extent Compensation Awarded by LAO (Rs. per acre) Compensation Enhanced by Reference Court (Rs. per acre) Difference (Enhanced Award) (Rs. per acre) Ac. 3.34 gts Rs. 16,900/- Rs. 22,500/- Rs. 5,600/- 23. For proper appreciation, the comparative chart of compensation, as awarded by the LAO and as enhanced by the Reference Court, is tabulated as under: Extent Compensation Awarded by LAO (Rs. per acre) Compensation Enhanced by Reference Court (Rs. per acre) Difference (Enhanced Award) (Rs. per acre) Ac. 3.34 gts Rs. 16,900/- Rs. 22,500/- Rs. 5,600/- 23. From the above tabulation, and upon a careful reappraisal of the evidence, it is the contention of the appellants that the LAO had adopted an unduly conservative approach in fixing the market value at Rs.16,900/- per Acre, without properly appreciating the sale instances of proximate period and the potential of the acquired lands. The appellants assert that Ex.A1, a registered sale deed dated 09.05.1994, clearly demonstrates that similar lands in the vicinity were sold at Rs.1,42,500/- per Acre and that Ex.B2, the award relied upon by the respondent itself shows the prevailing market value at Rs.90,000/- per Acre. The appellants, therefore, contend that the Reference Court erred in granting only a marginal enhancement to Rs.22,500/- per acre, 1 0 ignoring the fertility, irrigational nature and high commercial potential of the acquired lands. 24. In the light of the above, the crucial question that arises for consideration is whether the Reference Court was justified in restricting the enhancement to Rs. 22,500/- per acre, despite the clear evidentiary support under Exs.A1 and B2 indicating higher market value. It must therefore, be examined whether the Reference court failed to assign due weight to fertility, potentiality and advantageous location of the acquired lands and whether the appellants are entitled to a further enhancement of compensation consistent with the prevailing market value as referred in the contemporaneous sale transactions. IX. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS 25. We have carefully considered the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the Appellants/Claimants and the learned Government Pleader for Appeals appearing for the Respondent. We have also examined the entire record of the case, including the pleadings, the oral evidence of PWs 1 and 2 and RW1 and documentary evidence in the form of Ex. A1, as well as Exs. B1 and B2 relied upon by the LAO. 26. At the outset, it is not in dispute that the acquired lands, admeasuring Ac.3.34gts., were acquired for the purpose of construction of a check dam pursuant to a notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act dated 29.10.2001. A1, as well as Exs. B1 and B2 relied upon by the LAO. 26. At the outset, it is not in dispute that the acquired lands, admeasuring Ac.3.34gts., were acquired for the purpose of construction of a check dam pursuant to a notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act dated 29.10.2001. The claimants contended that the Reference Court erred in not placing reliance upon Ex. A1, the certified copy of sale deed Document No.153 of 1994 dated 09.05.1994, under which One Acre of land in Nashkal village was sold for Rs.1,42,500/-. It is their case that the acquired lands are adjacent to the lands covered under Ex. A1, similar in fertility and nature, and are advantageously situated near National Highway No.202 connecting Hyderabad and Warangal. Therefore, it is contended that the Reference Court ought to have determined the market value in consonance with the rate reflected under Ex. A1. 27. The appellants/claimants further contended that the Reference Court ignored the Award i.e. Ex. B2 filed by the respondent, which indicated that the prevailing market value at the time of acquisition was Rs.90,000/- per acre. It is urged that despite the said documentary evidence being on record, the Reference Court enhanced the value only to Rs.22,500/- per acre, which does not truly represent the prevailing market value of the acquired lands. Having regard to the material placed on record, it is evident that while Ex. B2 itself reflects a substantially higher market value, the Reference Court adopted a conservative approach, resulting in fixation of compensation at a lower rate. Considering the comparative sale instance under Ex. A1 and the proven fertility and potentiality of the lands, this Court finds that the rate of Rs.22,500/- per acre determined by the Reference Court substantially undervalues the acquired lands. Therefore, the contention of the appellants seeking further enhancement is well- founded, and the claim for fixation of compensation at a higher rate is justified. 28. It is pertinent to note that Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 categorically specifies the matters to be considered in determining compensation, and reads as under: “23. Therefore, the contention of the appellants seeking further enhancement is well- founded, and the claim for fixation of compensation at a higher rate is justified. 28. It is pertinent to note that Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 categorically specifies the matters to be considered in determining compensation, and reads as under: “23. Matters to be considered in determining compensation (1) In determining the amount of compensation to be awarded for land acquired under this Act, the Court shall take into consideration first, the market value of the land at the date of the publication of the [notification under section 4, sub-section (1)] [Substituted by Act 38 of 1923, Section 7, for " declaration relating thereto under section 6".]; secondly, the damage sustained by the person interested, by reason of the taking of any standing crops or trees which may be on the land at the time of the Collectors taking possession thereof; thirdly, the damage (if any) sustained by the person interested, at the time of the Collectors taking possession of the land, by reason of severing such land from his other land; fourthly, the damage (if any) sustained by the person interested, at the time of the Collectors taking possession of the land, by reason of the acquisition injuriously affecting his other property, movable or immovable, in any other manner, or his earnings; fifthly, if, in consequence of the acquisition of the land by the Collector, the person interested is compelled to change his residence or place of business, the reasonable expenses (if any) incidental to such change; and sixthly, the damage (if any) bona fide resulting from diminution of the profits of the land between the time of the publication of the declaration under section 6 and the time of the Collectors taking possession of the land. [(1-A) In addition to the market value of the land, as above provided, the Court shall in every case award an amount calculated at the rate of twelve per centum per annum on such market value for the period commencing on and from the date of the publication of the notification under section 4, sub-section (1), in respect of such land to the date of the award of the Collector or the date of taking possession of the land, whichever is earlier. Explanation. Explanation. In computing the period referred to in this sub- section, any period or periods during which the proceedings for the acquisition of the land were held up on account of any stay or injunction by the order of any Court shall be excluded.] [Inserted by Act 68 of 1984, Section 15 (w.e.f. 24.9.1984).] (2) In addition to the market value of the land as above provided, the Court shall in every case award a sum of [thirty per centum] [Substituted by Act 68 of 1984, Section 15, for " fifteen per centum" (w.e.f. 24.9.1984).] on such market value, in consideration of compulsory nature of the acquisition.” 29. The Honourable Supreme Court in Kapil Mehra v. Union of India , [ (2015) 2 SCC 262 ] laid down the method of determination of the market value and it was observed as under: “10. Market Value: First question that emerges is what would be the reasonable market value which the acquired lands are capable of fetching. While fixing the market value of the acquired land, the Land Acquisition Officer is required to keep in mind the following factors: (i) existing geographical situation of the land; (ii) existing use of the land; (iii) already available advantages, like proximity to National or State Highway or road and/or developed area and (iv) market value of other land situated in the same locality/village/area or adjacent or very near to the acquired land. 11. The standard method of determination of the market value of any acquired land is by the valuer evaluating the land on the date of valuation publication of notification Under Section 4(1) of the Act, acting as a hypothetical purchaser willing to purchase the land in open market at the prevailing price on that day, from a seller willing to sell such land at a reasonable price. Thus, the market value is determined with reference to the open market sale of comparable land in the neighbourhood, by a willing seller to a willing buyer, on or before the date of preliminary notification, as that would give a fair indication of the market value.” 30. Though Ex. A1 pertains to Nashkal village and not Dharmapur village, the evidence on record establishes that the lands are in close proximity, approximately within a distance of 0.5 to 1 kilometre and share similar characteristics, such as fertility and capable of yielding commercial crops. Therefore, Ex. Though Ex. A1 pertains to Nashkal village and not Dharmapur village, the evidence on record establishes that the lands are in close proximity, approximately within a distance of 0.5 to 1 kilometre and share similar characteristics, such as fertility and capable of yielding commercial crops. Therefore, Ex. A1 constitutes a valid and reliable comparative exemplar for determining the market value. Accordingly, this Court holds that Ex. A1 is a relevant and dependable indicator for fixing the proper compensation rate. 31. In Union of India v. Harinder Pal Singh and Others , (2005) 12 SCC 564 , the Honourable Supreme Court has laid down the principle, wherein it was held that lands situated in different villages, but forming a contiguous or comparable area, can be treated as a single unit for the purpose of fixing market value. The Court observed as follows: “15. We have carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties and we see no justification to interfere with the decision of the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court which, in our view, took a pragmatic approach in fixing the market value of the lands forming the subject-matter of the acquisition proceedings at a uniform rate. From the sketch plan of the area in question, it appears to us that while the lands in question are situated in five different villages, they can be consolidated into one single unit with little to choose between one stretch of land and another. The entire area is in a stage of development and the different villages are capable of being developed in the same manner as the lands comprised in Kala GhanuPur where the market value of the acquired lands was fixed at a uniform rate of Rs 40,000 per acre. The Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court discarded the belting method of valuation having regard to the local circumstances and features and no cogent ground has been made out to interfere with the same. 16. In our view, in the absence of any contemporaneous document, the market value of the acquired lands of Village Kala Ghanupur which were acquired at the same time as the lands in the other five villages was correctly taken to be a comparative unit for determination of the market value of the lands comprising the lands forming the subject-matter of the acquisition proceedings under consideration. No interference is, therefore, called for in these appeals and they are all dismissed without any order as to costs". 32. Applying the above principle to the facts of the instant case, this Court finds that although Ex. A1 pertains to Nashkal village and the acquired lands are situated in Dharmapur village, both the lands are adjacent, share similar nature and characteristics such as fertility, irrigation facilities, and commercial potential. The evidence on record clearly establishes that the acquired lands form part of the same “valuation belt” and are capable of being put to identical agricultural and commercial use. Therefore, Ex. A1 provides a valid and reliable comparative basis for determining the fair market value of the acquired lands. 33. In addition, this Court also takes judicial notice of the decision of Division Bench of this Court rendered in G. Venkat Reddy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh , L.A.A.S. No.1248 of 2005 decided on 21.10.2013 wherein, the State, vide notification dated 29.05.1999, had acquired the land to an extent of Ac.5.00 in S.No.461 of Raghunathpally Village, Zaffergadh Mandal, for the construction of the very same check dam near Dharmapur village. The LAO had initially fixed the compensation at Rs.14,300/- per acre, however, upon seeking reference, the compensation was enhanced to Rs.25,000/- per acre by the Reference Court after considering the prevailing market rates, documentary evidence of comparative sale deeds, the nature and fertility of the lands. Ultimately, this Court in an appeal filed by the claimants/land owners, had enhanced the compensation to Rs. 1,00,000/- per acre along with all the statutory benefits on the basis of Ex.A1. 34. Therefore, it is to be noted that the lands in Raghunathpally were similar in nature, productivity, and commercial potential to the lands in Dharmapur village. Applying the above said reasoning to the present case, this Court finds that the lands acquired in Dharmapur village, although located in a different village, are contiguous to Nashkal village, abutting the lands covered under Ex. A1, and possess comparable characteristics such as irrigation facilities, fertility and capacity for raising commercial crops. Applying the above said reasoning to the present case, this Court finds that the lands acquired in Dharmapur village, although located in a different village, are contiguous to Nashkal village, abutting the lands covered under Ex. A1, and possess comparable characteristics such as irrigation facilities, fertility and capacity for raising commercial crops. Therefore, by applying the principle of comparative assessment laid down in G. Venkat Reddy’s case (supra) , this Court is of the view that fixation of the market value of the present acquired lands at Rs.1,00,000/- per acre, would be fair, reasonable, thereby ensuring uniformity and parity in compensation for lands possessing similar fertility and potential. X. CONCLUSION: 35. In view of the foregoing discussion, we find that the lands acquired in Sy. No.229 of Dharmapuram village are contiguous to Nashkal village lands and are similar in all relevant characteristics, such as fertility, irrigation facilities, and potential for raising commercial crops. The said lands are also advantageously situated in close proximity to the National Highway connecting Hyderabad and Warangal. The comparative sale deed marked as Ex. A1 coupled with the precedent set in G. Venkat Reddy’s case (supra) convincingly supports the appellants’ claim for enhancement. The enhancement of the compensation to Rs.22,500/- per acre by the Reference Court, though an improvement against the award passed by LAO, nevertheless it failed to represent the actual market value having regard to the fertility of the land, income-generating capacity, and their proximity to developed areas and the National Highway. 36. In view of the above circumstances, this Court holds that the true market value of the acquired lands, as on the date of Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, should reasonably be fixed at Rs.1,00,000/- per acre, as claimed by the appellants. 37. As regards the statutory benefits, appellants/claimants shall be entitled to solatium at 30% and additional market value at 12% per annum from the date of the notification till the date of the award, together with interest at 9% per annum for the first year from the date of taking possession and 15% per annum thereafter till the date of realization, in accordance with Sections 23 (1-A), 23(2) and 28 of the Act. XI. RESULT: 38. In the light of the foregoing discussion, the appeal filed by the appellants/claimants is allowed, enhancing the compensation for the acquired land from Rs.22,500/- to Rs.1,00,000/- per acre. XI. RESULT: 38. In the light of the foregoing discussion, the appeal filed by the appellants/claimants is allowed, enhancing the compensation for the acquired land from Rs.22,500/- to Rs.1,00,000/- per acre. The Claimants shall be entitled to all statutory benefits permissible under the Act, including solatium, additional market value and interest as directed herein. Accordingly, the Appeal is allowed. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, in this Appeal shall also stand closed.