JUDGMENT: Vakiti Ramakrishna Reddy, J. 1. 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 08.03.2007 passed in O.P. No. 703 of 2003 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Medak (hereinafter referred to as the “Reference Court”). 2. By the impugned order, the Reference Court enhanced the compensation originally awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer (for short, “LAO”) in respect of the acquired lands. The LAO had fixed the market value at Rs.45,000/- per acre for Category-A, Rs.30,000/- per acre for Category-B and Rs.20,000/- per acre for Category-C lands. The Reference Court enhanced the said values to Rs.1,93,600/, Rs.1,45,200 and Rs.96,800/- per acre respectively. Aggrieved thereby, the present appeal is preferred by the LAO, Revenue Divisional Officer, Siddipet. I. BRIEF FACTS 3. The subject acquisition pertains to a total extent of Ac. 58-36 guntas of agricultural land situated in Survey Nos. 390 and 418 of Narsapur Village and Survey Nos. 415 and 442 of Mittapally Village, within Narsapur Mandal, Siddipet (erstwhile Medak) District. The lands were acquired for a public purpose, namely, excavation of a feeder channel as part of an irrigation development programme. II. NOTIFICATION AND AWARD 4. A preliminary notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published on 09.07.1999. Pursuant to the said notification, the LAO issued notices under Sections 9(3) and 10 of the Act, inviting objections and claims from the interested persons. Thereafter, an award enquiry was conducted by the LAO in accordance with law. 5. After completion of the enquiry, the LAO passed an award dated 21.05.2001, wherein the acquired lands were categorised into Category–A, Category–B, and Category–C. The basis for such categorisation, as recorded by the LAO, was the nature and quality of the land, including: (i) irrigation facilities available; (ii) soil fertility and productivity; (iii) proximity to water sources; (iv) distance from the main road and village habitation; and (v) overall potential for cultivation and yield. 6. Lands having assured irrigation and high fertility were placed in Category–A; lands with partial irrigation or moderate fertility were placed in Category–B; and lands that were dry, inferior, or lacking irrigation facilities were placed in Category–C. 7. Based on this classification, the LAO fixed the market value as follows: Category–A: Rs. 45,000/- per acre; Category–B: Rs. 30,000/- per acre; and Category–C: Rs. Based on this classification, the LAO fixed the market value as follows: Category–A: Rs. 45,000/- per acre; Category–B: Rs. 30,000/- per acre; and Category–C: Rs. 20,000/- per acre. 8. Not being satisfied with the compensation so awarded and contending that the categorisation as well as the valuation did not reflect the true market value of the lands, the claimants sought a reference under Section 18 of the Act, and the matter came to be registered as O.P. No. 703 of 2003 before the Reference Court. III. POINT BEFORE THE REFERENCE COURT 9. Upon the basis of the pleadings and rival assertions, the Reference Court framed the following point for determination: “Whether the market value fixed for the acquired lands can be enhanced and, if so, to what quantum?” 10. The Court noted that the entire adjudication revolved around the adequacy of compensation awarded by the LAO under Section 11 of the Act and the claimants’ assertion that the compensation did not reflect the true and fair market value of the lands on the date of the Section 4(1) notification. IV. EVIDENCE 11. In order to substantiate their claim for enhancement of compensation, the claimants examined PWs 1 to 7. Through them, the claimants marked Exs.A1 to A21, which include, Exs.A1 to A3 – Tonch Maps showing the detailed location, boundaries, and classification of the lands, Exs.A4 and A5 – certified copies of Revenue Maps, Exs.A7 to A16 – certified copies of various sale deeds reflecting the prevailing market value in the vicinity, Exs.A17 to A21 – certified copies of orders relating to comparable acquisitions and compensation awarded therein. These documents were relied upon to demonstrate (a) the potentiality of the lands, (b) the value of neighbouring lands, and (c) the inadequacy of the market value fixed by the LAO. 12. On behalf of the respondent–State, RW1 was examined. The State produced Exs.B1 to B4, which primarily consisted of the award file, classification statements, and documents relied upon by the LAO for determining the market value. V. FINDINGS OF THE REFERENCE COURT 13. The Reference Court, after careful appreciation of the entire oral and documentary evidence, recorded detailed findings. It first noted that the claimants had produced Exs.A1 to A3 (Tonch Maps) and Exs.A4 and A5 (Revenue Maps), clearly indicating the exact location, nature, and contour of the acquired lands. V. FINDINGS OF THE REFERENCE COURT 13. The Reference Court, after careful appreciation of the entire oral and documentary evidence, recorded detailed findings. It first noted that the claimants had produced Exs.A1 to A3 (Tonch Maps) and Exs.A4 and A5 (Revenue Maps), clearly indicating the exact location, nature, and contour of the acquired lands. These maps established that the lands were situated in proximity to irrigated tracts and possessed considerable agricultural potential. The Court further observed that Ex.A6 clearly depicted the alignment and location of the Feeder Channel, for which purpose the lands were specifically acquired. This, according to the Court, highlighted the importance and strategic location of the lands and supported the claimants’ contention regarding the value and potentiality of the property. In addition, the Reference Court examined Exs.A7 to A16, consisting of contemporaneous sale deeds relating to nearby lands. The Court found that the sale consideration reflected in these sale deeds was significantly higher than what the LAO had fixed. The Court held that these transactions, being proximate in time to the Section 4(1) notification and pertaining to lands situated in the vicinity, constituted reliable indicators of prevailing market value. The Reference Court further observed that the sale transactions contained in Exs.A7 to A16 constituted reliable and comparable instances for determining the market value of the acquired lands. The Court noted that the lands covered by these sale deeds were situated in close proximity to the subject lands and, therefore, satisfied the well-settled tests of comparability laid down by the Supreme Court—namely proximity of time, proximity of situation, similarity of potentiality, and absence of extraneous factors affecting value. The Court also took into account the specific admission made by RW1, the Government witness, that the acquired lands were located near Siddipet town and were in close vicinity to the villages of Mittapally, Narsapur, and Randampally, all of which were areas showing increasing developmental activity. The Court further observed that the lands possessed good potential for conversion into house sites, in view of their advantageous location and the infrastructural developments taking place in the surrounding region. 14. The Court further observed that the lands possessed good potential for conversion into house sites, in view of their advantageous location and the infrastructural developments taking place in the surrounding region. 14. In view of the above material, the Reference Court held that it was both just and necessary to assess the market value of the lands on a square yard basis, rather than on a per-acre basis, since the surrounding circumstances indicated that the lands had already acquired non- agricultural potentiality, particularly for residential plotting. The Reference Court also adverted to the fact that the LAO had earlier classified the lands into three categories ‘A’, ‘B’, and ‘C’ and awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 45,000/-, Rs. 30,000/-, and Rs. 20,000/- per acre, respectively. Having considered that the Feeder Channel extended to a length of 8.7 kilometers and that the acquired lands were situated at different points along this alignment, the Court found that the categorisation made by the LAO was reasonable, consistent with the ground realities, and appropriate for determining compensation. 15. Consequently, the Reference Court allowed the reference and held that the claimants were entitled to enhanced compensation at the rate of Rs. 40/- per square yard for Category-A lands, Rs. 30/- per square yard for Category-B lands, and Rs. 20/- per square yard for Category-C lands. In addition, the Court held that the claimants were entitled to Rs. 1,98,000/- towards the market value of the poultry farm existing on the acquired land. The Court also directed payment of all statutory benefits under the Land Acquisition Act, including 30% solatium, interest at 9% per annum for the first year from the date of possession (i.e., 28.07.1998 to 27.07.1999), and interest at 15% per annum thereafter till realization, together with interest on solatium and interest on the additional market value, as mandated under the Act. 16. Aggrieved by the order dated 08.03.2007 passed by the Reference Court, the Referring Officer preferred the present Appeal. VI. SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES: A) Contentions of the Appellant/ (State/LAO): 17. The learned Government Pleader for Appeals, appearing on behalf of the appellants contended that the Reference Court erred in enhancing the market value of the acquired lands to Rs.40/-, Rs.30/-, and Rs.20/- per square yard, in departure from the valuation fixed by the LAO, without there being any rational or reliable evidence. The learned Government Pleader for Appeals, appearing on behalf of the appellants contended that the Reference Court erred in enhancing the market value of the acquired lands to Rs.40/-, Rs.30/-, and Rs.20/- per square yard, in departure from the valuation fixed by the LAO, without there being any rational or reliable evidence. It was argued that the enhancement was made arbitrarily by almost exclusively relying upon Exs. A7 to A16, which are the sale deeds relating to lands in the same general vicinity, though the acquired lands extend over a stretch of nearly 8.7 kilometres, displaying significant internal variation in potentiality and location. 18. It is further submitted that the lands covered under those sale deeds were not strictly comparable in respect of location, potentiality, or developmental advantages, and therefore the Reference Court’s reliance on them was misplaced. It was further contended that the Reference Court erred in granting separate compensation for the poultry farms existing on the acquired lands, despite the fact that the LAO had already taken into consideration the value of such structures while determining the award. 19. The learned Government Pleader asserted that the enhancement made by the Reference Court was not supported by proper and comparable sale instances and that the market value determined lacked any reasonable basis. It was further urged that the Reference Court failed to consider Exs. A3 to A7, which pertain to sale deeds of lands situated in the comparable or same locations and were more appropriate for assessment. It was further argued that the Reference Court wrongly assumed that the fertility and potentiality of the acquired lands were identical to those covered under the sale deeds relied upon by the claimants, overlooking material distinctions between them. 20. On the basis of the aforesaid submissions, the learned Government Pleader for the appellants has prayed that, there being merit in the appeal, the same may be allowed. B) Contentions of the Respondents/Claimants: 21. In response, the learned counsel for the Respondents/claimants contended that the award passed by the LAO was wholly inconsistent with the prevailing market value. It was emphasized that the acquired lands enjoy significant locational advantage being abutting the Rajiv Rahadari-Hyderabad to Ramagundam road and also adjacent to the Highway from Siddipet to Husnabad, thereby commanding substantially higher value than that awarded by the LAO. 22. It was emphasized that the acquired lands enjoy significant locational advantage being abutting the Rajiv Rahadari-Hyderabad to Ramagundam road and also adjacent to the Highway from Siddipet to Husnabad, thereby commanding substantially higher value than that awarded by the LAO. 22. The respondents further contend that the acquired lands are suitable for house sites and many industries, rice mills, oil mills, tile factories, poultry forms, hotels, educational institutions and other firms were established in and around the acquired lands. It is was further contented that having regard to such advantageous location the claimants had rightly claimed the market value at Rs.500/- per square yard for the acquired lands situated adjoining the Rajiv Rahadari, Rs.120/- per square-yard for the acquired land categorized as 'A’, Rs.100/- per square yard for the acquired lands categorized as 'B' and Rs.50/- per square yard, for the acquired lands categorized as ‘C’. 23. The respondents also claimed compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- towards market value of the poultry shed and structures situated on the acquired land along with all statutory benefits under amended provisions of the Act. 24. On the basis of the aforesaid submissions, the learned Counsel for Respondents has submitted that the award passed by the Reference Court is just and proper and as such there being no merit in the present appeal, deserves to be dismissed. VII. POINTS FOR DETERMINATION: 25. 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 enhancing the market value of the acquired lands? (ii) Whether the enhancement granted is in accordance with law and evidence on record? (iii) Whether any interference with the findings of the Reference Court is warranted? VIII. COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF COMPENSATION: 26. For a clearer appreciation of the controversy, the comparative chart of compensation, as awarded by the LAO and as enhanced by the Reference Court, is tabulated as under: Category Extent Acs-Gts. Compensation Awarded by LAO (Rs. per acre) Compensation Enhanced by Reference Court (Rs. per acre) Difference (Enhanced Award) (Rs. per acre) A 02-03 45,000/- (Rs. 40/- per square yard)1,93,600/- 1,48,600/- B 27-35 30,000/- (Rs. 30/- per square yard)1,45,200/- 1,15,200/- C 25-13 20,000/- (Rs. 20/- per square yard)96,800/- 76,000/- 27. Compensation Awarded by LAO (Rs. per acre) Compensation Enhanced by Reference Court (Rs. per acre) Difference (Enhanced Award) (Rs. per acre) A 02-03 45,000/- (Rs. 40/- per square yard)1,93,600/- 1,48,600/- B 27-35 30,000/- (Rs. 30/- per square yard)1,45,200/- 1,15,200/- C 25-13 20,000/- (Rs. 20/- per square yard)96,800/- 76,000/- 27. From the above tabulation, and upon a careful reappraisal of the evidence, it is manifest that the LAO had adopted a distinctly conservative approach in fixing the market value, whereas the Reference Court, on the other hand, took into account: i. the location and potentiality of the lands; ii. the sale exemplars of the proximate period; and iii. the comparability of lands situated in the vicinity of the acquired lands. 28. The crucial question, therefore, is whether the reliance placed by the Reference Court on Exs. A7 to A16 and its ultimate fixation of market value basing upon the above can be said to be justified in law. IX. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS: 29. We have carefully considered the rival submissions advanced by the learned Government Pleader for appeals appearing for the Appellant and learned counsel for the Respondents/claimants and also perused the entire record of the case, including the pleadings, oral evidence of PWs 1 to 7 and RW1, and the documentary evidence under Exs.A1 to A21 as well as Exs.B1 to B4. 30. At the outset, it is not in dispute that the lands, admeasuring Ac.58-36 guntas belonging to the respondents were acquired for the public purpose of excavation of a feeder channel pursuant to a notification under Section 4(1) of the Act dated 09.07.1999. The learned Government Pleader for Appeals, appearing on behalf of the appellants contended that the Reference Court erred in enhancing the market value of the acquired lands to Rs.40/-, Rs.30/- and Rs.20/- per square yard without there being any rational or reliable evidence. 31. Before proceeding further, it is relevant to refer to Section 23 of the Act, which categorically enumerates the parameters to be considered while determining compensation, and reads as under: “23. 31. Before proceeding further, it is relevant to refer to Section 23 of the Act, which categorically enumerates the parameters to be considered while 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.” 32. The learned Government Pleader for Appeals specifically contended that small sale transactions and small pieces of land cannot offer the same market value and will never fetch price to that of a large tract of land. It is further contended that in a catena of judgments, the Honourable Supreme Court had rejected such instances of small sale transactions as being not comparable sales. To support his contentions, the learned Government Pleader for Appeals has placed reliance upon Gurulingappa and others v. Assistnat Commissioner and Land Acquisition Officer Gulbarg , AIR 1997 SC 1750 and Agricultural Produce Market Committee v. LAO & Assistant Commissioner , (1996) 10 SCC 629 . The Honourable Supreme Court in Agricultural Produce Market Committee’s case (supra) has observed as under: “It is now a well-settled legal position that in compulsory acquisition, the Court would sit in the armchair of a willing purchaser and would ask whether as a reasonable prudent vendee, he would offer in the open market the rate of market value proposed by him in respect of the land under acquisition. The Court requires to consider the relative values of the lands in the neighbour-hood, the soil condition and same or similar advantageous features on comparable prices.” 33. The learned counsel for the respondents/claimants has contended that while determining the market value in land acquisition matters, the Land Acquisition Officer is required to keep in mind various factors as enumerated under Section 23 of the Act. The learned counsel for the respondents/claimants further contended that it is now well settled that smaller extents of land could be relied upon for determining the market value of large acquired tracts. 34. The learned counsel for the respondents/claimants further contended that it is now well settled that smaller extents of land could be relied upon for determining the market value of large acquired tracts. 34. The Honourable Supreme Court in Kapil Mehra v. Union of India , (2015) 2 SCC 262 exhaustively laid down the guiding principles for determination of the market value in land acquisition matters. The court emphasized that, while assessing the reasonable market value which the acquired land is capable of fetching, the Land Acquisition Officer must take into account several relevant factors. The Court 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. 35. In continuation of this settled legal framework, the learned counsel for the claimants placed reliance on the decision in Madhukar v. Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation and others , (2022) 13 Supreme Court Cases 344 wherein the Honourable Apex Court reiterated that the market value must be determined keeping in view of various factors including proximity to developed or developing areas, which can significantly influence its potential value. 36. 36. The learned counsel for the claimants also drew support from the decision in Satish and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others , (2009) 14 Supreme Court Cases 758 wherein the Honourable Apex Court held that when multiple comparable sale exemplars are placed on record and are otherwise admissible and reliable, the exemplar reflecting the highest market value amongst them may be adopted for the purpose of valuation. 37. Furthermore, in an earlier decision in Shaji Kuriakose and others v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited and others , 6 (2001) 7 SCC 650 , the Honourable Supreme Court affirmed that the comparable sales method of valuation is generally to be preferred over other methods of valuation for determination of the of the market value. In a detailed exposition on this aspect, the Court observed as under: “3. It is no doubt true that courts adopt Comparable Sales Method of valuation of land while fixing the market value of the acquired land. While fixing the market value of the acquired land, Comparable Sales Method of valuation is preferred than other methods of valuation of land such as Capitalisation of Net Income Method or Expert Opinion Method. Comparable Sales Method of valuation is preferred because it furnishes the evidence for determination of the market value of the acquired land at which a willing purchaser would pay for the acquired land if it has been sold in open market at the time of issue of notification under Section 5 of the Act. However, Comparable Sales Method of valuation of land for fixing the market value of the acquired land is not always conclusive. There are certain factors which are required to be fulfilled and on fulfilment of those factors the compensation can be awarded, according to the value of the land reflected in the sales. The factors laid down inter alia are: (1) the sale must be a genuine transaction, that (2) the sale deed must have been executed at the time proximate of the date of issue of notification under Section 4 of the Act, that (3) the land covered by the sale must be in the vicinity of the acquired land, that (4) the land covered by the sales must be similar to the acquired land and that (5) the size of plot of the land covered by the sales be comparable to the land acquired. If all these factors are satisfied, then there is no reason why the sale value of the land covered by the sales be not given for the acquired land. However, if there is a dissimilarity is regard to locality, shape, site or nature of land between land covered by sales and land acquired, it is open to Court to proportionately reduce the compensation for acquired land than what is reflected in the sales depending upon the disadvantages attached with the acquired land.” 38. The contention of the learned Government Pleader that the Reference Court wrongly relied upon Exs.A7 to A16 since the acquired lands stretch over about 8.7 kilometres, is untenable. A mere linear spread does not dilute comparability when the acquired lands form a continuous belt with similar locational features and potential. In such circumstances, sale deeds from the same general vicinity remain valid indicators of market value. Further, as admitted by RW1, the Government had taken possession of the acquired lands on 28.07.1998, while the notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 09.07.1999, and the award was passed on 21.05.2001. Therefore, sale transactions executed within three years prior to the date of taking possession (i.e., 28.07.1998) could legitimately be considered for determining the prevailing market value. 39. In this context, the claimants relied upon Exs. A7 to A16, which comprise a series of registered sale deeds in the same locality. PW1 deposed that several transactions took place in the same locality of Mittapally Village at rates ranging between Rs.15/- and Rs.200/- per square yard. Notably, Exs. A-11 and A-12 are three years preceding the date of possession, wherein lands in the vicinity were sold at Rs.15/- per square yard. Subsequent transactions under Exs. A14 and A15 reflected higher rates of Rs.75/- per square yard, showing a consistent increase in market value of the lands in the locality. These sale statistics demonstrate that the market value of lands situated near the acquired area ranged between Rs.15/- and Rs.75/- per square yard, depending on proximity and potentiality. 40. It is further evident from Ex. A17 that the Government had earlier acquired Ac.7.10 guntas of land in S.No.1154 of Lingareddypally hamlet, Siddipet, where the LAO initially fixed the market value at Rs.22,000/- per acre. 40. It is further evident from Ex. A17 that the Government had earlier acquired Ac.7.10 guntas of land in S.No.1154 of Lingareddypally hamlet, Siddipet, where the LAO initially fixed the market value at Rs.22,000/- per acre. Upon reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned Senior Civil Judge, Siddipet, enhanced the same to Rs.38/- per square yard, which was also later confirmed by this Court in appeal. The said land, located merely two furlongs from the present acquired lands, provides a sound and comparable basis for valuation. In view of these materials, the Reference Court was fully justified in adopting the rate under Ex. A17 and determining the market value of the acquired lands on a square-yard basis. 41. The Honourable Supreme Court in Land Acquisition Officer v. Karigowda , (2010) 5 SCC 708 , has categorically held that sale deeds pertaining to lands situated in the same or nearby villages, sharing similar physical characteristics, fertility, and development potential, provide the most reliable basis for comparison in determining market value and observed as follows: “75. It is a settled principle of law that lands of adjacent villages can be made the basis for determining the fair market value of the acquired land. This principle of law is qualified by clear dictum of this Court itself that whenever direct evidence i.e. instances of the same villages are available, then it is most desirable that the court should consider that evidence. But where such evidence is not available court can safely rely upon the sales statistics of adjoining lands provided the instances are comparable and the potentiality and location of the land is somewhat similar. The evidence tendered in relation to the land of the adjacent villages would be a relevant piece of evidence for such determination. Once it is shown that situation and potential of the land in two different villages are the same then they could be awarded similar compensation or such other compensation as would be just and fair.” 42. In the present case, the sale exemplars marked as Exs.A7 to A16 relate to lands situated within the same vicinity and locality of the acquired lands. The evidence of PWs 1 to 7, supported by Exs.A7 to A16 , registered sale deeds clearly establishes that the lands covered under the said sale deeds are identical in nature, fertility, location, and possess similar advantages. The evidence of PWs 1 to 7, supported by Exs.A7 to A16 , registered sale deeds clearly establishes that the lands covered under the said sale deeds are identical in nature, fertility, location, and possess similar advantages. Hence, these sale deeds constitute the most appropriate and proximate evidence for assessing the market value of the acquired lands. 43. The contention of the Appellant that the sale deeds under Ex. A7 to Ex. A16 pertain to small extents and therefore cannot form the basis for determination of market value is untenable. The Apex Court in Land Acquisition Officer and Sub-collector, Gadwal v. Smt. Sreelatha Bhoopal and another , AIR 1997 SC 2552 has observed that the small pieces of land cannot offer the same market value when a large tract of land is purchased in an open market by a willing and prudent purchaser. Whereas in Ravinder Kumar Goel v. State of Haryana and others , 2023 SCC OnLine SC 147 the Honourable Supreme Court had an occasion to consider whether transactions relating to smaller extents of land could be relied upon for determining the market value of large acquired tracts. The Apex Court, while addressing this issue, observed as follows: “13. Therefore, since we have already indicated that the High Court was not justified in merely relying on the circular fixing the floor rates when other evidence was available on the record pursuant to the remand made, it is necessary for us to take note as to whether the Reference Court had committed an error in not relying on the sale exemplars produced by the respondents without analysing the comparability. The position of law is well settled that when large extent of lands is acquired and if the sale exemplar, also for the large extent is available on record it would be safer to rely on the same if they are comparable transactions. However, as already noted above, this Court in Atma Singh (supra) has also held that the sale instances of smaller extents cannot be ignored. Further, this Court has reiterated in many cases that the sale exemplars for smaller extent can be relied upon subject to appropriate deduction being provided towards development charges.” 44. However, as already noted above, this Court in Atma Singh (supra) has also held that the sale instances of smaller extents cannot be ignored. Further, this Court has reiterated in many cases that the sale exemplars for smaller extent can be relied upon subject to appropriate deduction being provided towards development charges.” 44. Therefore, this Court is of the view that merely because the land covered under a sale transaction is of a smaller extent, the same does not become inadmissible or unreliable for comparative purposes, if the said transaction is genuine, proximate and relatable in situation and character. 45. The learned Government Pleader further contended that the reference court has erred in fixing the compensation on square yard basis as against the compensation awarded by the L.A.O on acreage basis cannot be sustained, as it is well-settled that the Reference Court is not bound by the method adopted by the Land Acquisition Officer and is fully empowered to re-determine the market value on the basis of the most appropriate and reliable evidence available on record. When comparable sale deeds, surrounding development, and the potentiality of the land justify valuation on a square-yard basis, the Reference Court is competent to depart from the acreage method and adopt a unit best reflecting the true market value. The change in the mode of calculation does not amount to any illegality so long as the ultimate determination remains just, fair, and supported by evidence. The Reference Court, therefore, acted within its jurisdiction in reassessing the compensation on a square-yard basis. 46. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds that the Reference Court has properly appreciated both oral and documentary evidence placed before it and arrived at a just and reasonable determination of compensation. The fixation of the market value of the acquired lands at the rate of Rs.40/- per square yard for lands in Category-A, Rs.30/- per square yard for lands in Category-B, Rs.20/- per square yard for lands in Category-C is supported by evidence, and are in consonance with the principles laid down under Section 23(1) of the Act. The sale transactions relied upon pertains to the same vicinity and locality and are comparable in nature. 47. The next contention of the learned Government Pleader is that the Reference Court while relying upon the sale deeds under Ex. A7 to Ex. The sale transactions relied upon pertains to the same vicinity and locality and are comparable in nature. 47. The next contention of the learned Government Pleader is that the Reference Court while relying upon the sale deeds under Ex. A7 to Ex. A16, where the market value is reflected on a square yard basis, ought to have made a deduction of 1/3 rd towards development charges, which is the standard norm applied by courts in cases, where market value is determined on the basis of small extent sale transactions. According to the learned Government Pleader, the failure to apply such deduction renders the enhancement unsustainable. 48. In Sabhia Mohammed Yusuf Abdul Hamid Mulla v. Land Acquisition Officer , (2012) 7 SCC 595 , the Supreme Court held that deduction towards development is justified only in cases of undeveloped or underdeveloped lands, generally to the extent of 1/3rd. However, where no development is required for implementation of the public purpose, such deduction is unwarranted. The Court observed as under: “19 . In fixing the market value of the acquired land, which is undeveloped or underdeveloped, the courts have generally approved deduction of 1/3rd of the market value towards development cost except when no development is required to be made for implementation of the public purpose for which land is acquired.” 49. In the present case, the lands acquired are fertile and fully developed and that the lands were acquired specifically for the purpose of excavation of a feeder channel. As is evident from the record, the lands are to be put to public use in their existing form, without requiring conversion into plots or layouts or development of roads, drainage, or other infrastructural facilities. Applying the principle laid down in the above precedent, deduction towards development charges is warranted only where the acquired land is undeveloped or underdeveloped and requires conversion into plots or layouts involving roads, drainage, and other facilities. Since in the present case, no developmental activity is required for the intended public purpose, the Reference Court was justified in not applying 1/3 rd deduction and the contention of the learned Government Pleader cannot be accepted. Therefore, where the land is directly put to public use without any such developmental activity, such deduction is wholly unwarranted. 50. Since in the present case, no developmental activity is required for the intended public purpose, the Reference Court was justified in not applying 1/3 rd deduction and the contention of the learned Government Pleader cannot be accepted. Therefore, where the land is directly put to public use without any such developmental activity, such deduction is wholly unwarranted. 50. It is lastly contended by the learned Government Pleader that the Reference Court erred in granting separate compensation for the poultry farms existing on the acquired lands, despite the LAO having already taken into account the value of such structures while passing the award. This contention is equally unsustainable. It is pertinent to note that the respondents/claimants themselves asserted a distinct and specific claim for the poultry farm situated on their acquired lands. In view of such a separate and independent claim, the Reference Court was justified in independently assessing the value of the poultry farm based on the evidence adduced and in fixing the compensation at Rs.1,98,000/-. 51. Under Section 23(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, the market value of the acquired land is to be determined by including not only the value of the land but also all improvements or structures situated thereon. Ordinarily, where the value of a poultry farm has already been included as part of the overall market value, awarding a separate amount may not arise. However, in the present case, the valuation adopted for the land by the Reference Court expressly excluded the specific cost of the poultry farm. Consequently, the Reference Court, after considering the rival submissions and the evidence on record, rightly assessed the estimated value of the poultry farm at Rs.1,98,000/-. The grant of separate compensation is, therefore, well- supported by evidence and squarely in consonance with the statutory mandate under Section 23(1) of the Act. 52. Further, the compensation granted separately for the poultry farm and the land cannot, by itself, be a ground to interfere with the well- reasoned order of the Reference Court. The Reference Court has rightly recognized that the poultry farm constituted an independent improvement existing on the acquired land, and that its separate valuation represents a fair and accurate computation of the total compensation payable, rather than any duplication of benefits. 53. The Reference Court has rightly recognized that the poultry farm constituted an independent improvement existing on the acquired land, and that its separate valuation represents a fair and accurate computation of the total compensation payable, rather than any duplication of benefits. 53. Though it is settled law that the value of the poultry farm should ideally be an integrated component of the overall land valuation, a procedural separation in the award does not, by itself, vitiate the entire decision, provided that the total compensation determined is fair, reasonable and based on evidence. It is to be noted that only when the income capitalization method is adopted for assessing market value of acquired lands, no separate compensation for poultry farm can be granted, since that method computes a composite value of the income generating asset as a whole. However, where the valuation is not strictly based on income capitalization method, awarding separate compensation, for poultry farm may be permissible, particularly when the poultry farm constitutes distinct and valuable improvements that directly contribute to the productivity of the land. Moreover, the intent behind not awarding compensation separately for the poultry farm and the land is merely to avoid double valuation. The rationale is that the income capitalization method determines a composite market value of the entire income-generating asset based on its potential returns. Awarding separate compensation for individual components that contribute to that income stream would amount to double valuation, which is impermissible. In the instant case, since the market value of the acquired lands was fixed based on the comparable sale exemplars under Exs.A7 to A16, there is no instance of following capitalization method. Thus, the approach of the Reference Court in assessing the market value of the acquired lands and the poultry farm in the said acquired lands separately cannot be termed as erroneous or contrary to law. 54. Hence, awarding compensation in respect of the acquired lands and the poultry farm therein separately or together is of no material consequence, as long as the total amount represents the fair market value of the acquired land. Accordingly, the above contention advanced by the learned Government Pleader for Appeals is devoid of merit and stands rejected. 55. 54. Hence, awarding compensation in respect of the acquired lands and the poultry farm therein separately or together is of no material consequence, as long as the total amount represents the fair market value of the acquired land. Accordingly, the above contention advanced by the learned Government Pleader for Appeals is devoid of merit and stands rejected. 55. An appellate court will ordinarily interfere with an award of the Reference Court only on well-defined legal grounds, such as a manifest error in determining the market value or a violation of a fundamental legal principle, and not a mere technicality in presentation. Merely because the Reference Court awarded compensation separately in respect of acquired lands and the poultry farm existing therein cannot, by itself furnish a ground to set aside the award passed by the Reference Court. Therefore, as long as the total enhanced compensation is justifiable based on market value and evidence, the method of breaking it down into separate heads for land and poultry farm, cannot be faulted and is not a valid basis for interference. X. CONCLUSION: 56. In the light of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no illegality, perversity, or procedural irregularity in the findings of the Reference Court warranting interference in the Appeal. The order of the Reference Court is based on a proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence and represents a fair and reasonable determination of the market value and the value of improvements. Accordingly, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 57. As regards to the statutory benefits, appellants/claimants are entitled to solatium at 30% and additional market value at 12% per annum from the date of notification till the date of 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: 58. For the reasons recorded above, the Appeal Suit stands dismissed, confirming the order and decree dated 08.03.2007 passed in O.P. No. 703 of 2003 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Medak. The Claimants shall be entitled to all statutory benefits under the Act, including but not limited to solatium, additional value and interest etc., as indicted hereinbefore. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. The Claimants shall be entitled to all statutory benefits under the Act, including but not limited to solatium, additional value and interest etc., as indicted hereinbefore. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, in this Appeal shall also stand closed.