JUDGMENT : The present appeal is preferred by the appellant / claimant aggrieved by the order dated 07.03.2005 in LAOP No.59 of 1996 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Nuzvid. 2) Heard Mr.T.D.Phanikumar, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.T.S.Rayulu, learned Government Pleader for Appeals. 3) For the purpose of extension of agricultural market yard, Nuzvid, Krishna District, a Notification dated 31.10.1990 under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) was issued for acquisition of land of an extent of Ac.2-00 cents of the appellant, situated in R.S.No.916/1B of Nuzvid Village. As no compensation was paid, the appellant filed W.P.No.6946 of 1996 on the file of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh and the same was disposed of by an order dated 05.04.1996 with a direction to fix the compensation within two months. Subsequently, the Land Acquisition Officer after conducting enquiry, passed Award No.1/1991, dated 06.03.1991 determining the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per acre. 4) Aggrieved by the said fixation, the appellant / claimant sought market value at the rate of Rs.150/- per square yard by seeking reference under Section 18 of the Act. Before the Reference Court, the appellant got examined PWs 1 to 3 and got marked Exs.A1 to A5, whereas on behalf of the Referring Officer R.W.1 was examined and Exs.B1 to B3 were marked. A copy of the Award No.1 of 1988–89, dated 10.05.1988 was marked as Ex.X1. Learned Reference Court examining the evidence adduced before it, by Judgment and decree dated 07.03.2005, fixed the market value at the rate of Rs.32,000/- per acre from the date of Section 4(1) Notification together with statutory benefits. Dissatisfied with the said enhancement of market value, the appellant preferred the present appeal by restricting the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.45/- per Sq.yard. 5) The learned counsel for the appellant, inter alia, contended that the order under challenge fixing the market value at the rate of Rs.32,000/- per acre is not just or tenable. 5) The learned counsel for the appellant, inter alia, contended that the order under challenge fixing the market value at the rate of Rs.32,000/- per acre is not just or tenable. He submits that a perusal of the sale transactions vide Exs.A1 to A5 would clearly go to show that the land in the vicinity of the acquired lands was sold on yardage basis even much prior to the acquisition proposals of the Government and in such circumstances, the learned Reference Court went wrong in not fixing the market value on square yard basis. He submits that the learned Reference Court ought to have appreciated that Ex.X1 i.e., Award No.1 / 1988-89, dated 10.05.1988 pertains to acquisition of huge extent of land, which were acquired in the year 1986-87 for the purpose of establishing Autonagar and the said lands situated in Sy.No.888 are far away from the Nuzivid – Machilipatnam road, whereas even as per the evidence of R.W.1, the township of Nuzvid was extended from the acquired site upto one furlong towards east. He submits that one M/s.Panduranga Industry purchased the land of an extent of 1078 Sq.yards situated in Sy.No.924/2B at the rate of Rs.45/- per sq.yard vide Registered Sale Deed dated 30.03.1988 i.e., about 2 ½ years prior to the Section 4 (1) Notification in respect of the land in question and the learned Reference Court should have taken the said sale transaction into consideration and fixed the market value at the rate of Rs.45/- per sq.yard, though the appellants claimed Rs.150/- per sq.yard. He further submits that even as per the oral evidence adduced on behalf of the appellant-claimant, the market value in the vicinity was not less than Rs.100/- per Sq.yard and nothing could be elicited in the cross-examination of the appellant witnesses that the sale transactions relied on by the appellant are not reflecting the correct market value. Making the said submissions and relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in New Okhla Industrial Development Authority v Harnand Singh (Deceased) through Lrs., and Others , [2024 SCC OnLine SC 1691] , the learned counsel seeks to allow the appeal by enhancing the compensation as fixed by the learned Reference Court. 6) On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for Appeals contends that the order under challenge is just and valid, contains cogent reasons and warrants no interference by this Court. 6) On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for Appeals contends that the order under challenge is just and valid, contains cogent reasons and warrants no interference by this Court. He submits that the learned Reference Court had fixed the market value on thorough appreciation of oral and documentary evidence adduced on both sides and therefore the contentions contra are not sustainable. 7) Considered the submissions made and perused the material on record. On an appreciation of the rival contentions, the point that arises for consideration is “Whether the appellant is entitled to more compensation than the compensation fixed by the learned Reference Court, in the facts and circumstances of the case?” 8) To substantiate the claim for enhancement at the rate of Rs.150/- per Sq.yard as originally made, the appellant got marked Ex.A1 to A5. Ex.A1 is a Registered sale deed dated 30.03.1988, wherein an extent of 1078 sq.yards situate in sy.no.924/2B was purchased by M/s Panduranga Industries at the rate of Rs.45/-per sq.yard, which works out at Rs.2,17,800/- per acre. Ex.A2 is another sale deed, dated 31.07.1986, wherein an extent of 1210 sq.yards situated in Sy.No.888 was sold at the rate of Rs.20/- per sq.yard, which works out to Rs.96,800/- per acre. Exs.A3 and A4 sale deeds dated 26.07.1986 and 23.07.1986 pertains to sale of Ac.0-50 cents each for Rs.40,000/- each, reflecting the market value at the rate of Rs.80,000/- per acre. Ex.A5 is a sale transaction, wherein an extent of 1210 sq.yards situated in Sy.No.888 was sold for Rs.24,200/- at the rate of Rs.20/- per Sq.yard. These transactions clearly establish that the sales of land on square yard basis is prevalent in the area even much prior to the acquisition of the subject matter land. 9) In the oral evidence of the P.W.1, it was categorically asserted that the acquired land is adjacent to Nuzivid–Machilipatnam road, there are other industries and residential houses by the side of the acquired land and that there is a market yard on one side of the acquired land. It was also elicited that a Travellers Bungalow and Krishna Fruit Canning Industry is on the other side of the road; that by the side of the acquired land Panduranga Industry, which manufactures bolts and nuts, is situated and township of Nuzivid exists beyond the acquired land upto a distance of half kilometre. It was also elicited that a Travellers Bungalow and Krishna Fruit Canning Industry is on the other side of the road; that by the side of the acquired land Panduranga Industry, which manufactures bolts and nuts, is situated and township of Nuzivid exists beyond the acquired land upto a distance of half kilometre. Further, that there are two tiles factories in the vicinity of the acquired land, it has got potentiality to use as house sites or for industrial purposes without making any further developments. PW 2, who is a third party and son of one Mr. Pathuri Krishna Murthy, who purchased the land for Panduranga Industry, vide Ex.A1 dated 30.03.1988, deposed that the acquired land is situated at a distance of 200 yards of the site of Panduranga Industry; that the same has got potentiality to use as house sites, without making any further development. He also asserted that by the end of the year 1988, the market value of the acquired land is not less than Rs.100/- per square yard as the same is situated adjacent to Nuzivid – Machilipatnam road and situated in Nuzivid town. In the cross-examination he stated that the distance between the acquired land and to the entrance of the Nuzivid is ½ km and the residential houses are situated upto a distance of ¼ km., near the acquired land. 10) P.W.3, the husband of one Smt. Madala Sesha Ratnam in his evidence deposed that the land of his wife situated in Sy.No.888 of Nuzvid was acquired vide Ex.X1 Award No.1/88-89, dated 10.05.1988, awarding a compensation of Rs.33,222/- per acre and the same is at a distance of one furlong away to the main road, whereas the land of the claimant / appellant is adjacent to the main road. In the cross-examination he categorically stated that the land under acquisition is more potential than the land of his wife and denied the suggestion that the acquired land was having market value of Rs.20,000/- per acre by the date of acquisition. R.W.1 (incumbent RDO & LAO) in his cross- examination admitted that Panduranga Industry is adjacent to the acquired land and that the lands covered under R.S.No.916 and 924 are of the same quality, same fertility and having similar potentiality as they are adjoining to each other. He also admits that R.S.No.888 is far away from Nuzvid – Machilipatnam road. R.W.1 (incumbent RDO & LAO) in his cross- examination admitted that Panduranga Industry is adjacent to the acquired land and that the lands covered under R.S.No.916 and 924 are of the same quality, same fertility and having similar potentiality as they are adjoining to each other. He also admits that R.S.No.888 is far away from Nuzvid – Machilipatnam road. Thus, a close scrutiny of the evidence would establish that the land in question is far away from the lands acquired vide Award No.1/88-89 (Ex.X1), on which reliance is placed by the learned Reference Court for fixation of the market value. The categorical assertions of the appellant’s witnesses with regard to the location of the subject matter land, its potentiality, location would lend support the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the fixation of the market value with reference to Ex.X1 is not justified. 11) As noted earlier sales of land on square yard basis is prevalent in the area in question as is evident from Exs.A1, A2 and A5. Nothing is elicited in the cross-examination of claimant / appellant’s witnesses that the said sale transactions are not genuine, let alone a suggestion that the rate mentioned per square yard is not correct. Admittedly, the lands are situated in close proximity to Nuzvid town and the evidence discloses that the acquired land is adjacent to Nuzivid–Machilipatnam road. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that the market value can be fixed on square yard basis, more particularly, as acquisition of the land in the present case is only two acres, but not a huge extent, in which event, the value has to be fixed on acreage basis. Exs.A2 to A5 are the sale transactions of the year 1986, more than three years prior to Section 4(1) Notification and may be taken into account in the absence of any other evidence. However, Ex.A1, dated 30.03.1988 is a transaction pertaining to sale of an extent of 1078 sq.yards situated in Sy.No. 924/2B by M/s Panduranga Industry, which is adjacent to the subject matter land of the appellant-claimant. The said sale is more than 2 ½ years prior to Section 4(1) Notification dated 31.10.1990. However, Ex.A1, dated 30.03.1988 is a transaction pertaining to sale of an extent of 1078 sq.yards situated in Sy.No. 924/2B by M/s Panduranga Industry, which is adjacent to the subject matter land of the appellant-claimant. The said sale is more than 2 ½ years prior to Section 4(1) Notification dated 31.10.1990. The son of the vendee was examined as PW 2 and as noted above, nothing is elicited in the cross- examination to take a view that the said transaction is not genuine or not reflecting the true market value. Therefore, this Court is inclined to take the said sale transaction for fixation of the market value. In fact, if the time gap is taken into account, the appellant would be entitled for appreciation of the market value. However, he had restricted his claim to Rs.45/- per square yard. 12) In the light of the material available on record, the fixation of the market value by the Reference Court @ Rs.32,000/-, in the considered opinion of this Court, is not just and reasonable and the same is, therefore, warrants interference. 13) Accordingly, the appeal is allowed fixing the market value of the acquired lands at the rate of Rs.45/- per square yard. Further, as per the evidence on record, the land is having potentiality for house sites, therefore deductions for development / providing amenities etc., have to be made. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Horrmal (Deceased) through his LRs and others v State of Haryana & Others , [MANU/SC/1134/2024] , inter alia, opined that the deductions for development may be made upto 80% depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case. In the present case, though it was stated by the appellants / claimants’ witnesses that the acquired land has the potentiality for use of house sites or industrial purpose without making any further developments, keeping in view the legal position and acquisition of land is for extension of agricultural market yard, it is deemed appropriate to apply 1/3 rd deductions for providing amenities. Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of the appellant. 14) In the result, the appeal is allowed and the market value in respect of the subject matter lands is fixed @ Rs.45/- per square yard i.e., Rs.2,17,800/- per acre and 1/3 rd shall be deducted for development charges / amenities. Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of the appellant. 14) In the result, the appeal is allowed and the market value in respect of the subject matter lands is fixed @ Rs.45/- per square yard i.e., Rs.2,17,800/- per acre and 1/3 rd shall be deducted for development charges / amenities. The appellant is entitled to all the statutory benefits on the market value so fixed, from the date of Section 4 (1) of the Notification. 15) Consequently, the Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. No costs.