JUDGMENT : Tirumala Devi Eada, J. This appeal, under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (for short ‘the Act’) is preferred by the Special Deputy Collector, Karimnagar aggrieved by the order and decree dated 13.06.2003 passed in O.P.No.113 of 1997 by the learned Senior Civil Judge at Karimnagar (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’). 2. The appellant – Special Deputy Collector is aggrieved by the order of the trial Court enhancing the compensation from Rs.16,800/- per acre that was granted by the Land Acquisition Officer to that of Rs.1,46,000/- per acre. 3. X-Objections are filed by the respondents - claimants praying for enhancement of the market value of the acquired lands to Rs.4,00,000/-. It is their contention that the lands which were acquired are useful for residential house purposes and that the Court below while enhancing the market value ought to have considered that the neighbouring lands are sold for residential houses, medical, educational institutions, industrial and commercial establishments and that documentary evidence was filed to the said effect. It is their further contention that the acquired lands in subject matter O.P.No.04 of 1998 were purchased by the claimants therein by forming into house building society and many plots were sold in the year 1988 and that the acquisition has taken place when the construction was about to get started and in the vicinity there were rice mills, poultry farms and dairy farms. They further contended that the evidence of PWs 1 to 5 and the documentary evidence under Exs.A1 to A9 ought to have been considered by the Court below. That the lands acquired are situated nearer to Karimnagar Town and that they are just 1 KM away from the Government Hospital, Karimnagar and that during the pendency of the acquisition proceedings the area in which the acquired lands are situated, was brought under the purview of the Municipal Corporation of Karimnagar. Therefore, they prayed for enhancement of compensation to Rs.4,00,000/- per acre. 4. For convenience and clarity, the parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed before the trial Court. 5. The facts of the case in brief are that based on the requisition made by the Deputy Chief Engineer South Central Railway, land to an extent of Ac.29.16 guntas situated in the limits of Bommakal village of Karimnagar Mandal and District was acquired, for the purpose of laying railway line. 5. The facts of the case in brief are that based on the requisition made by the Deputy Chief Engineer South Central Railway, land to an extent of Ac.29.16 guntas situated in the limits of Bommakal village of Karimnagar Mandal and District was acquired, for the purpose of laying railway line. A draft notification was issued under Section 4(1) and 6 of the Act on 17.10.1995 in the Gazette and on 14.11.1995 in the local news paper. After conducting the due enquiry, the LAO has fixed the market value of the land as Rs.16,800/- per acre. Aggrieved by the said award, the claimants have filed a petition for reference and the same was referred under Section 18 of the Act to the trial Court. 6. The trial Court has framed the following point for consideration: “Whether the claimants are entitled for enhancement of compensation, if so, at what rate?” 7. The claimants before the trial Court got examined PWs 1 to 5 and Exs.A1 to A10 were marked. One Manzoor Ahmed, Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition Unit, S.C.Railway, Karimnagar got examined as RW1 and Exs.B1 and B2 were marked. 8. Based on the evidence on record, the trial Court has enhanced the compensation from Rs.16,800/- per acre to Rs.1,46,000/- per acre. Aggrieved by the said enhancement, the Special Deputy Collector has preferred the present appeal. 9. Heard the submissions of Ms.T.Suhasini, learned Standing Counsel for the appellants and Sri V.R.Avula, learned counsel for the respondents. 10. The learned appellant counsel has argued that the trial court has not considered the evidence adduced by the respondents/Land Acquisition Officer and that it has simply passed the award based on the sale deeds filed by the claimants and simply believed their evidence and has awarded the exorbitant amount of Rs.1,46,000/- per acre and has therefore, prayed to set aside the award passed by the trial Court by allowing the appeal. 11. The learned respondents counsel, on the other hand, has filed cross objections and submitted that the trial Court has granted a meager amount of compensation, and that the documents filed by the claimants are not properly considered and has therefore, prayed this Court to enhance the compensation. 12. Considering the above facts, the grounds raised in the appeal and the X-objections of the claimants, this Court frames the following points for consideration: 1. Whether the claimants are entitled for enhancement of compensation? 12. Considering the above facts, the grounds raised in the appeal and the X-objections of the claimants, this Court frames the following points for consideration: 1. Whether the claimants are entitled for enhancement of compensation? 2. Whether the trial Court’s order and decree need any interference? 3. To what relief? 13. POINT NO.1: a) A perusal of the record reveals that the land was acquired for the purpose of formation of New Broad Gauge Railway Line and a vast extent of Ac.29-16 guntas situated in the limits of Bommakal village of Karimnagar Mandal and District was acquired. Exs.A1 to A7 are the sale deeds relied upon by the claimants. Under Ex.A1, dated 09.03.1994 an extent of 133.33 Sq.Yards in survey No.126 was sold @Rs.35/- per square yard for a total amount of Rs.4,670/- Under Ex.A2, dated 25.03.1994 an extent of 400 Sq.Yards in survey No.39, Plot Nos.31 and 32 was sold @ Rs.50/- per Square Yard for a total amount of Rs.20,000/-. Under Ex.A3, dated 31.03.1994 an extent of 242 Sq.Yards in survey No.738 was sold @ Rs.80/- per square yard, for a total amount of Rs.19,360/-. Under Ex.A4, dated 06.07.1994 total an extent of 400 sq.yards in survey No.38 and 39, plot Nos.68 part and 69, was sold @Rs.85/- per square yard, for an amount of Rs.34,000/-. Under Ex.A5, dated 17.10.1994 an extent of 200 sq.yards in survey No.41, Plot No.44 was sold @Rs.40/- per square yard, for an amount of Rs.8,000/-. Under Ex.A6, dated 23.02.1995 an extent of 466.67 Sq.Yards in plot bearing Nos.77 and 76 (which form a compact block) in survey No.76 was sold @Rs.45/- per square yard, for an amount of Rs.21,100/-. Under Ex.A7, dated 09.11.1995 an extent of 1070.17 Sq.Yards in survey No.748/B was sold @Rs.413.20/- per square yard for a total amount of Rs.4,42,300/-. All the sale deeds filed by the claimants under Exs.A1 to A7 pertain to the years 1994 and 1995, hence, the same can be considered while awarding compensation as they are within a period of three years prior to the present acquisition. b) A perusal of these exhibits reveals that the value of the land under the sale deeds was ranging from Rs.1,69,400/- to that of Rs.19,99,888/- per acre. Depending on the quality of the land, the price must have varied even among the sale transactions under Exs.A1 to A7. b) A perusal of these exhibits reveals that the value of the land under the sale deeds was ranging from Rs.1,69,400/- to that of Rs.19,99,888/- per acre. Depending on the quality of the land, the price must have varied even among the sale transactions under Exs.A1 to A7. c) The oral evidence of PWs 1 and 2 shows that the acquired lands are situated near Rajiv Rahadari State Highway leading from Hyderabad to Godavarikhani via Karminagar and that the land acquired from PW1 is adjoining the abadi of Karimnagar City and that it is at a distance of ½ KM from Kishannagar locality of Karimnagar Municipality and that his neighbouring lands were purchased by Sripriya Real Estates and were made into house plots and were being sold @Rs.20,000/- per gunta in the year 1993 and that out of the same survey No.90 an extent of Ac.04-00 guntas were acquired in this case, which belongs to claimant Nos.1 to 4. It is further elicited from the evidence of PW2 that their lands are double crop dry lands and that they were being irrigated by SRSP Canal Water and as the said lands were fertile, they used to cultivate chilies, ground nut, vegetables and cotton crops and earn a net annual income of Rs.30,000/- to Rs.40,000/- per acre per year. PW3 is the vendee of sale deed under Ex.A3 and PW4 is the attestor of sale deed under Ex.A6 and they deposed about the said sale transactions. Nothing much was elicited during their cross examination to discredit their evidence. PW5 is an Architect who has assessed the value of wells in the lands under Exs.A9 and A10. There is no challenge about the said estimations made with regard to the wells in the appeal. d) RW1 in his cross examination has admitted that the acquired lands are situated at a distance of about 4 KMs from Karimnagar town. e) Karimnagar is the District headquarters and Bommakal village is situated at a distance of 4 KMs from the main city. Obviously, the lands would fetch good returns and as it is observed through the sale transactions under Exs.A1 to A7, they are of much higher value than what is awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. e) Karimnagar is the District headquarters and Bommakal village is situated at a distance of 4 KMs from the main city. Obviously, the lands would fetch good returns and as it is observed through the sale transactions under Exs.A1 to A7, they are of much higher value than what is awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. f) A perusal of Ex.B1, the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer discloses that he has taken the statistics of the sales pertaining to the years 1994 and 1995, wherein the price of the lands ranged from Rs.16,000/- per acre to that of Rs.20,00,684/- per acre, which shows that there is wide range in the price of the land situated in the said village. However, the Land Acquisition Officer has taken into consideration, two statistics i.e. one at Sl.No.278 which discloses that the sale transaction pertains to 13.09.1994, wherein the market value is shown to be Rs.16,563/- per acre. So also, he has considered the sale transaction at Sl.No.566, which discloses that the market value is shown to be Rs.16,800/- per acre. The Land Acquisition Officer has taken these two sale transactions into consideration ignoring all others on record though he is supposed to take into consideration the highest sale value of the land portrayed in the sale statistics pertaining to that village. In this regard, it is apt to refer to a decision of the Apex Court in Mehrawal Khewaji Trust v. State of Pubjab , (2012) 5 SCC 432 , wherein it is held as under: “When there are several exemplars with reference to similar lands, it is the general rule that the highest of the exemplars, if it is satisfied that it is a bona fide transaction, has to be considered and accepted.” g) In the present case, the highest of the exemplars is not considered by the Land Acquisition Officer while awarding compensation. h) Thus, considering the evidence adduced by the claimants under Exs.A1 to A7 and also the sale transactions disclosed in the statistics under Ex.B1, it is revealed that the lands at Bommakal village fetch more value, than what is awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer and hence, it is held that the claimants are entitled for enhancement in compensation and the amount awarded by the reference Court i.e. Rs.1,46,000/- is held to be justifiable amount. i) It was contended by the learned appellant counsel that the sale transactions shown in bits and pieces cannot be taken as a standard to fix the market value over a vast extent of land. It is relevant to refer to the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Land Acquisition Officer, Revenue Divisional Officer v. L.Kamalamma , [(1998) 2 Supreme Court Cases 385] and Trishala Jain v. State of Uttaranchal , [ (2011) 6 SCC 47 ] j) In Land Acquisition Officer, Revenue Divisional Officer ’s case (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court held as under: “6. …when no sales of comparable land were available where large chunks of land had been sold, even land transactions in respect of smaller extent of land could be taken note of as indicating the price that it may fetch in respect of large tracts of land by making appropriate deductions such as for development of the land by providing enough space for roads, sewers, drains, expenses involved in information of a layout, lump sum payment as also the waiting period required for selling the sites that would be formed”. k) In Trishala Jain v. State of Uttaranchal ’s case (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court held as under: “The sale instances even of smaller plots could be considered for determining the market value of a larger chunk of land with some deduction unless, there was comparability in potential, utilization, amenities and infrastructure with hardly any distinction. On such principles each case would have to be considered on its own merits”. l) Thus, when no other comparable documents are available, the sale transactions involving smaller extents of land can be considered by allowing reasonable deductions, if they are similar in potentiality, utilization, amenities and infrastructure. Based on the said principle, the trial Court has enhanced the compensation from Rs.16,000/- to that of Rs.1,46,000/- per acre and hence, the same is held to be justified. Point No.1 is answered accordingly. 14. POINT NO.2: In view of the reasoned finding arrived at Point No.1, this Court holds that the trial Court’s order and decree do not need any interference. 15. POINT NO.3: In the result, the appeal and the X-objections filed by the claimants are dismissed upholding the order and decree dated 13.06.2003 passed in O.P.No.113 of 1997 by the learned Senior Civil Judge at Karimnagar. No costs. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.