JUDGMENT : Laxmi Narayana Alishetty, J. Heard Ms. Ayesha Tasneem, learned counsel for the appellants-claimants and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Appeals appearing for the respondent-Land Acquisition Officer. 2. This Appeal, under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 , (for brevity ‘the Act’), is filed by the claimants aggrieved by the order and decree dated 04.02.2013 passed in L.A.O.P.No.33 of 2006 on the file of the Ist Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad, (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as “the Reference Court”). 3. In nut-shell, the facts of the case are that the Government acquired a total extent of 4,127.47 square yards of property, which includes land admeasuring 116.17 square yards bearing premises No.16-10-49 and land admeasuring 67.75 square yards bearing premises No.16-10-49/C, situated at Nalgonda X-Roads, Malakpet, Hyderabad, belonging to the appellants/claimants, for the purpose of construction of fly over bridge at Nalgonda Cross roads; that Draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published in Hyderabad District Gazette on 29.09.2005; that Draft declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published in Hyderabad District Gazette on 30.09.2005 and after following the procedure prescribed under the Act and on conducting enquiry, the Land Acquisition Officer passed Award, dated 13.03.2006, fixing the market value of the acquired land @ Rs.2,229/- per square yard. 4. Not being satisfied with the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, the claimants sought reference under Section 18 of the Act and the same was referred to the competent Civil Court, which was numbered as LAOP.No.33 of 2006. 5. Before the Reference Court, on behalf of the appellants /claimants, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-7 were marked. 6. The Reference Court, on due enquiry, by order dated 20.04.2009 dismissed the said OP. Challenging the said order, the claimants carried the matter to the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh by filing LAAS.No.412 of 2009 and the High Court vide judgment dated 21.02.2011 set aside the order dated 20.04.2009 of the Reference Court and remanded the matter to the Reference Court for fresh disposal on merits, in accordance with law, after giving notices and opportunity to the parties concerned. 7. After remand of the said OP, before the Reference Court, on behalf of the claimants, Exs.P-1 to P-4 were marked and P.W-1 was further examined by filing his additional affidavit in lieu of chief examination. 7. After remand of the said OP, before the Reference Court, on behalf of the claimants, Exs.P-1 to P-4 were marked and P.W-1 was further examined by filing his additional affidavit in lieu of chief examination. On behalf of the respondent-Referring Officer, R.W-1-Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, GHMC, was examined and Exs.R-1 to R-3 were marked. 8. On due appreciation of the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, placed before it, the Reference Court enhanced the market value of the acquired land from Rs.2,229/- per square yard to Rs.5,400/- per square yard, apart from granting other statutory benefits under the Act to the claimants. Seeking further enhancement of the market value fixed by the Reference Court for the acquired property, the present appeal is filed by the claimants. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants inter alia contended that the Reference Court erred in appreciating the documents filed by the appellants/claimants in proper perspective; that the Reference Court while fixing the market value of the acquired properties ought to have taken the highest of the exemplars, i.e., Ex.P-2-sale deed into consideration, but it failed to do so; that the Reference Court has failed to take note of the fact that the acquired properties are situated in midst of commercial area and surrounded by prominent buildings and therefore, the same has higher potentiality and fetches higher market value; and therefore, the impugned order of the Reference Court is liable to be set aside, by enhancing the market value of the acquired land, as claimed by the appellants/claimants. 10. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Appeals appearing for the respondent-Land Acquisition Officer contended that the Reference Court taking into account the location of the acquired properties and on due appreciation of oral and documentary evidence placed before it, has rightly fixed the market value of the acquired land, which requires no interference by this Court and prayed to dismiss this Appeal, as being devoid of any merits. 11. In order to assess and fix the market value of the subject acquired land, this Court has undertaken the exercise of examining each and every document, i.e., the exhibits, placed before the Reference Court. Exs.A-1 to A-5 are Market Value Certificates However, in the light of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of judgments, i.e., in Choda Dharampal Reddy Vs. Exs.A-1 to A-5 are Market Value Certificates However, in the light of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of judgments, i.e., in Choda Dharampal Reddy Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer, Nalgonda District , [ 1998(1) ALD 261 (DB)] and BSNL Vs. Nemichand Damodardas , [ (2022) 14 SCC 60 ] the said documents cannot form basis for determination of market value of the acquired property. 12. Exs.A-6 and A-7 being news items published in ‘The Hindu’ English daily newspaper, the same cannot be taken into account for determining the market value of the acquired properties. 13. Ex.P-1, as deposed by P.W-3, is check slip pertaining to Ex.P-2-sale deed. P.W-3-Senior Assistant, Sub-Registrar’s Office, Azampura, in his evidence deposed that the market value of the undivided area of 8.36 square yards reflected in Ex.P-1 as Rs.9,900/- per square yard, is, in fact, based on the Basic Value Register maintained by the Sub-Registrar’s Office. Further, Ex.P-2- sale deed, dated 14.02.2005, being a combined sale deed, there is no separate break-up showing the market value of the built-up area admeasuring 301 square feet and the market value of the undivided area of 8.36 square yards. It is common knowledge that the sale consideration paid for a flat in an apartment/commercial complex, would be in respect of value of the built-up area and proportionate undivided area of land. Therefore, in the absence of any specific break-up of the market values of the built-up area and undivided area of land being reflected in Ex.P-2, the Reference Court has rightly not taken the said sale deed as exemplar sale deed for fixing the market value of the acquired land. 14. Further, a perusal of Ex.R-1-Award, shows that the Land Acquisition Officer has referred to six sale deeds pertaining to the relevant period of three years preceding the date of 4(1) notification, wherein the market value of the land was ranging from Rs.2,100/- to Rs.5,415/- per square yard. The market value of the land shown in the sale deed, dated 28.08.2005, at Sl.No.2 is Rs.5,415/- per square yard, is the highest among all the sale deeds. The market value of the land shown in the sale deed, dated 28.08.2005, at Sl.No.2 is Rs.5,415/- per square yard, is the highest among all the sale deeds. However, the Land Acquisition Officer has discarded the same on the ground that the land covered under the said sale deed is situated in a bye-lane at a distance of one kilometer from the land under acquisition and has fixed the market value of the acquired land @ Rs.2,229/- per square yard based on sale deed, dated 28.05.2005, shown at Sl.No.1 of the Award. 15. Perusal of the record discloses that the sale deed, dated 28.05.2005, shown at Sl.No.1 of the Award, which was relied upon by the Land Acquisition Officer, for fixing the market value of the acquired land, is a combined sale deed and the Land Acquisition Officer, after deducting the structure value as assessed by the Sub- Registrar, worked out the value of the land @ Rs.2,229/- per square yard. Here, it is pertinent to note the definition of the expression ‘market value’ as defined by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Atma Singh Vs. State of Haryana , [ (2008) 2 SCC 568 ] is extracted as hereunder:- “The market value is the price that a willing purchaser would pay to a willing seller for the property having due regard to its existing condition with all its existing advantages and its potential possibilities when led out in most advantageous manner excluding any advantage due to carrying out of the scheme for which the property is compulsorily acquired. In considering market value disinclination of the vendor to part with his land and the urgent necessity of the purchaser to buy should be disregarded. The guiding star would be the conduct of hypothetical willing vendor who would offer the land and a purchaser in normal human conduct would be willing to buy as a prudent man in normal market conditions but not an anxious dealing at arms length nor facade of sale nor fictitious sale brought about in quick succession or otherwise to inflate the market value. The determination of market value is the prediction of an economic event viz., a price outcome of hypothetical sale expressed in terms of probabilities.” 16. The determination of market value is the prediction of an economic event viz., a price outcome of hypothetical sale expressed in terms of probabilities.” 16. Therefore, the aforesaid sale deed which was relied upon by the Land Acquisition Officer for fixing the market value of the acquired land, obviously, does not reflect the true and correct market value of the land covered therein, as it does not fall within the definition of expression ‘market value’, 17. Here, it is relevant to note that the genuineness of the sale deed, dated 28.08.2005, shown at Sl.No.2 of the Award, is not disputed by the Land Acquisition Officer. In other words, it is not the case of the Land Acquisition Officer that the said sale deed is not a bonafide transaction, as observed by the Reference Court. In such an event, though, admittedly, the land covered under the said sale deed is situated in a bye-lane at a distance of one kilometer from the land under acquisition, the same cannot be discarded only on the said flimsy ground. As, admittedly, the land under acquisition abutting the main road, which definitely has higher potentiality and fetches higher value than what was reflected in the sale deed shown at Sl.No.2 of the Award. Therefore, in the light of settled principle of law that when there are several exemplars with reference to similar lands, the highest of the exemplars, if it is satisfied that it is a bona fide transaction, has to be considered and accepted, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mehrawal Khewaji Trust v. State of Punjab , [ (2012) 5 SCC 432 ] , the Reference Court has rightly fixed the market value of the acquired land based on the said sale deed. 18. Further, it is settled principle of law that when it is the case of the claimants that the compensation granted by the Reference Court is unreasonable and meager, the burden is upon them to prove that the acquired land fetches higher market value than the one fixed by the Reference Court, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Deputy Collector and another etc., v. Kurra Sambasiva Rao and others , [ AIR 1997 SC 2625 ] . In the instant case, the claimants failed to discharge such burden cast upon them and no material, evidence is placed on record in support of their contention/claim and hence, they are not entitled for enhancement of market value of the acquired land as was fixed by the Reference Court. 19. In the light of the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Reference Court has rightly adopted the sale deed shown at Sl.No.2 of the Ex.R-1-Award and fixed the market value of the acquired land, based on the same. Hence, the impugned order of the Reference Court warrants no interference by this Court and the Appeal is liable to be set aside. 20. Accordingly, this Appeal is dismissed. 21. As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No costs.