JUDGMENT : (T. Vinod Kumar, J.) This appeal, under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 , (for short 'the Act') is filed by the claimants aggrieved by the order dated 04.12.2007 passed in LAOP.No.128 of 1992 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Mahbubnagar (hereinafter referred to as "the Reference Court'). 2. The Appellants herein are Claimants in the underlying OP, filed under section 18 of the Act for enhancement of the compensation. 3. Heard learned Counsel for the Appellants and learned Government Pleader for Appeals for the Respondents and perused the record. 4. The case of appellants is that the Tahsildar of Mahbubnagar initiated acquisition proceedings to acquire the land of the appellants to an extent of Ac. 3-25 cents (equivalent to Ac. 3-10 Guntas) dry Patta land situated in Sy. No. 259-A, within the revenue limits of Amistapur village, Bhootpur Mandal, Mahabubnagar District for the purpose of allotting houses to persons belonging to the Backward Classes. A notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued and published on 15.02.1982, and a Draft declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published on 13.04.1998. After conducting enquiry and following the procedure prescribed under the Act, the Land Acquisition Officer passed Award dated 20.11.1991 fixing the compensation at a rate of Rs. 2,500/- per acre. 5. The appellants/claimants contend that they received the compensation on 21.05.1992, granted by the Land Acquisition Officer under protest and sought reference under Section 18 of the Act and the same was referred to the competent civil Court and numbered as LAOP.No.128 of 1992 on the file of the Reference Court. The Reference Court had dismissed the said petition. 6. The appellants contend that the Land Acquisition officer failed to consider the development potential of the acquired land as Amistapur village is adjacent to Mahbubnagar town, and by the time of acquisition, the urban expansion of Mahbubnagar had already extended up to Amistapur, which has significantly increased the market value of the acquired land. 7. The appellants contend that the acquired land is abutting the Mahbubnagar–Srisailam–Kurnool Road and has prime connectivity. Several infrastructural and institutional facilities were stationed in close proximity to the acquired land, including a power substation, Postgraduate Centre, Sathya Sai Gurukulam, as well as various industrial establishments and seed farms. 8. 7. The appellants contend that the acquired land is abutting the Mahbubnagar–Srisailam–Kurnool Road and has prime connectivity. Several infrastructural and institutional facilities were stationed in close proximity to the acquired land, including a power substation, Postgraduate Centre, Sathya Sai Gurukulam, as well as various industrial establishments and seed farms. 8. The appellants contend that the reference court has failed to take note of the fact that the land in Sy. No. 259/A and Sy. No. 260 are abutting with each other and the land in Sy. No. 260 was sold on yard basis prior to the issuance of notification under section 4(1). However, the land acquisition officer failed to consider the sale transaction and did not assign any reason for calculating the compensation on acre basis rather than on yard basis. 9. The appellants contend that the acquired land has become commercially viable and valuable, and there was a demand in the market at the rate of Rs. 150/- per square yard. Despite the demand, the Land Acquisition Officer failed to adopt a yardage- based valuation and instead arbitrarily determined compensation on a per-acre basis, without any justification. In addition, no additional benefits or interest as provided under the Act was awarded. 10. Per contra the respondent contends that award for compensation was passed as per the prevailing market value as on the date of notification u/s. 4 (1) of the Act and they had followed the fair and just procedure for fixing compensation. The respondent further contends that the appellants had not filed any substantial proof or evidence to show their entitlement for enhancement of the compensation. Therefore, the claimants are not entitled for further enhancement. 11. Before the Reference Court, on behalf of the appellants/ claimants, P. Ws-1 & 2 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-24 were marked. On behalf of the Referring Officer, RW-1 was examined and Ex. B1 was marked. 12. The Reference Court upon perusal of the documentary evidence filed in support, observed that it is well-established that the burden of proof rests with the appellants to establish the market value as on the date of notification and the appellants must provide credible and acceptable evidence to justify an increase in the compensation. 13. The Reference Court observed that, in the oral testimonies of P.Ws. 1 and 2, they claimed to be yielding a net income of Rs. 13. The Reference Court observed that, in the oral testimonies of P.Ws. 1 and 2, they claimed to be yielding a net income of Rs. 10 to 12 lakhs per annum, appears to be exaggerated and cannot be relied upon, inasmuch as the crops being cultivated on the acquired land were cattle feed, jowar, and groundnuts, it is unreasonable to expect that the claimants were generating such a substantial income in the year of acquisition i.e. in 1982. Therefore, the contention of appellants that they were cultivating commercial crops is not substantiated by the any documentary evidence. 14. The Reference Court further observed that, P.W. 2 stated that the value of the land for house sites was between Rs. 1,800/- and Rs. 2,000/- per square yard, yet there is no documentary evidence filed to substantiate their claim that adjacent land was converted into house plots and sold on a yardage basis. 15. In contrast, R.W.1, who was serving as the Mandal Revenue Officer with additional charge of Bhothpur Mandal, testified regarding the circumstances of the award. According to R.W.1, the award was based on 40 sale transactions that took place within a period of three years prior to the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. Specifically, the adjacent land in Sl.No. 39 in Sy. No. 6, similar in soil quality, was sold at Rs. 1,200/- per acre on 03.02.1982. Whereas the appellants were granted compensation comparatively at a higher rate of Rs. 2,500/- per acre basing upon the fertility of the acquired land, its irrigation potential and the advantages of cultivation. R.W.1 denied that the adjacent plots were compensated at Rs. 1,800/- to Rs. 2,000/- per square yard. 16. The Reference Court has observed that the claimants have failed to establish any basis for an enhancement of compensation beyond the amount already awarded. The valuation of the land should be based on the market conditions prevailing at the time of notification and acquisition, and not at the time of presenting evidence or rendering judgment. Consequently, held that the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition officer is reasonable and the claimants are not entitled to the enhancement of compensation. 17. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the reference Court, the Appellants have filed the present Appeal, seeking for enhancement of the compensation. 18. We have taken note of the respective contentions urged. 19. Consequently, held that the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition officer is reasonable and the claimants are not entitled to the enhancement of compensation. 17. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the reference Court, the Appellants have filed the present Appeal, seeking for enhancement of the compensation. 18. We have taken note of the respective contentions urged. 19. In the instant case, a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 15.02.1982. Pursuant thereto, the Land Acquisition Officer passed an award on 20.11.1991, and the appellants received the compensation on 21.05.1992. It is pertinent to note that there was a substantial interregnum of a decade between the date of notification and the date of disbursement of compensation. During this period, the market value of the acquired land had significantly appreciated. Despite, the Land Acquisition officer had awarded Rs. 2,500/- per acre as compensation and the State failed to revise the market value to reflect the prevailing rates at the time of the award. This omission resulted in the appellants receiving compensation that was grossly inadequate and not commensurate with the actual value of the land at the relevant time. 20. It is pertinent to note that Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 categorically lists out the matters to be considered in determining compensation, and reads as under: 23. This omission resulted in the appellants receiving compensation that was grossly inadequate and not commensurate with the actual value of the land at the relevant time. 20. It is pertinent to note that Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 categorically lists out 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. 21. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kapil Mehra vs. Union of India , [ (2015) 2 SCC 262 ] laid down the method of determination of the market value and further observed that: 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. 22. Considering the escalation/increase of market value of the lands was elaborately dealt with and analyzed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in General Manager, ONGC Ltd Vs. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel and another , [ (2008) 14 SCC 745 ] , paras 13 and 14 of the judgment reads as under: - "13. 22. Considering the escalation/increase of market value of the lands was elaborately dealt with and analyzed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in General Manager, ONGC Ltd Vs. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel and another , [ (2008) 14 SCC 745 ] , paras 13 and 14 of the judgment reads as under: - "13. Primarily, the increase in land prices depends on four factors situation of the land, nature of development in surrounding area, availability of land for development in the area, and the demand for land in the area. In rural areas unless there is any prospect of development in the vicinity, increase in prices would be slow, steady and gradual, without any sudden spurts or jumps. On the other hand, in urban or semi-urban areas, where the development is faster, where the demand for land is high and where there is construction activity all around, the escalation in market price is at a much higher rate, as compared to rural areas. In some pockets in big cities, due to rapid development and high demand for land, the escalations in prices have touched even 30% to 50% or more per year, during the nineties. 14. On the other extreme, in remote rural areas where there was no chance of any development and hardly any buyers, the prices stagnated for years or rose marginally at a nominal rate of 1% or 2% per annum. There is thus a significant difference in increases in market value of lands in urban/semi-urban areas and increases in market value of lands in the rural areas. Therefore, if the increase in market value in urban/semi-urban areas is about 10% to 15% per annum, the corresponding increases in rural areas would at best be only around half of it, that is about 5% to 7.5% per annum. This rule of thumb refers to the general trend in the nineties, to be adopted in the absence of clear and specific evidence relating to increase in prices. Where there are special reasons for applying a higher rate of increase, or any specific evidence relating to the actual increase in prices, then the increase to be applied would depend upon the same." 23. On perusal of the order dated.20.11.1991 passed by the Land Acquisition officer, it is noted that the appellants were awarded compensation at Rs.2,500/- per acre which equates to approximately Rs.0.51 per square yard. On perusal of the order dated.20.11.1991 passed by the Land Acquisition officer, it is noted that the appellants were awarded compensation at Rs.2,500/- per acre which equates to approximately Rs.0.51 per square yard. In this regard, it is to be seen that the amount awarded is clearly inadequate in as per the existing market value. Further, it is noteworthy to mention that the given compensation by the authorities is exceptionally low. 24. The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was lacking the specific provision for the periodic revision of the market value, whereas the section 26 of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, Provided that the Collector shall, before initiation of any land acquisition proceedings in any area, take all necessary steps to revise and update the market value of the land on the basis of the prevalent market rate in that area’. Therefore, it is to be noted that even though there was no statutory mandate subsisting on the date of Section 4 (1) notification for periodic revision, the land acquisition officer has to consider the nominal rate of market value. 25. Basic market value is determined by the Collector as per the Telangana Revision of Market Value Guideline Rules, 1998 which have been made in exercise of the power Under Section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. Sale value cannot be less than the basic value. Since market value is highly volatile, there cannot be any uniform system of determining the market value. It cannot be argued, therefore, that the land has been granted at a concessional rate as it has been sold at basic market value. (See: State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. vs. Rao, V.B.J. Chelikani and Ors. , [ 2024 INSC 894 ] ) 26. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ultra Tech Cemment Limited V. Mast Ram and Others , [ (2025) 1 SCC 798 ] has held that: “This Court held that a fair and reasonable compensation is the sine qua non for any acquisition process. 47. In Roy Estate v. State of Jharkhand, (2009) 12 SCC 194 ; Union of India v. Mahendra Girji, (2010) 15 SCC 682 and Mansaram v. S.P. Pathak, (1984) 1 SCC 125 , this Court underscored the importance of following timelines prescribed by the statutes as well as determining and disbursing compensation amount expeditiously within reasonable time. 47. In Roy Estate v. State of Jharkhand, (2009) 12 SCC 194 ; Union of India v. Mahendra Girji, (2010) 15 SCC 682 and Mansaram v. S.P. Pathak, (1984) 1 SCC 125 , this Court underscored the importance of following timelines prescribed by the statutes as well as determining and disbursing compensation amount expeditiously within reasonable time. 49. This Court has held in Dharnidhar Mishra (D) v. State of Bihar, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 932 and State of Haryana v. Mukesh Kumar, (2011) 10 SCC 404 that the right to property is now considered to be not only a constitutional or statutory right, but also a human right. This Court held in Tukaram Kana Joshi thr. Power of Attorney Holder v. M.I.D.C., (2013) 1 SCC 353 that in a welfare State, the statutory authorities are legally bound to pay adequate compensation and rehabilitate the persons whose lands are being acquired. The nonfulfillment of such obligations under the garb of industrial development, is not permissible for any welfare State as that would tantamount to uprooting a person and depriving them of their constitutional/human right. 52. Acquisition of land for public purpose is undertaken under the power of eminent domain of the government much against the wishes of the owners of the land which gets acquired. When such a power is exercised, it is coupled with a bounden duty and obligation on the part of the government body to ensure that the owners whose lands get acquired are paid compensation/awarded amount as declared by the statutory award at the earliest.” 27. When such a power is exercised, it is coupled with a bounden duty and obligation on the part of the government body to ensure that the owners whose lands get acquired are paid compensation/awarded amount as declared by the statutory award at the earliest.” 27. The Hon’ble Supreme court in Bernard Francis Joseph Vaz and Others V. Government of Karnataka and Others , [2025 SCC OnLine SC 20] has held that: ….under exceptional circumstances, where either the Apex Court or High Courts came to the conclusion that the acquisition proceedings themselves were liable to be quashed on account of certain illegalities or infirmities in the acquisition process/procedure, it was permissible only for the Apex Court in exercise of its powers under Article 32/142 or the High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to shift the date to a later/subsequent date; however, this power to shift the date is available only to either the Apex Court or the High Courts and not definitely/certainly to the SLAOs or the State Government; in other words, a perusal of the decisions referred to supra, will indicate that in cases, where the Apex Court as well as this Court deemed it necessary to shift the date in order to do complete and substantial justice, inherent powers of the Courts were invoked and the dates were shifted in order to ensure no hardship, loss or prejudice would be caused to the land losers. 48. It cannot be gainsaid that the appellants herein have been deprived of their legitimate dues for almost 22 years ago. It can also not be controverted that money is what money buys. The value of money is based on the idea that money can be invested to earn a return, and that the purchasing power of money decreases over time due to inflation. What the appellants herein could have bought with the compensation in 2003 cannot do in 2025. It is, therefore, of utmost importance that the determination of the award and disbursal of compensation in case of acquisition of land should be made with promptitude. 54 . If the compensation to be awarded at the market value as of the year 2003 is permitted, it would amount to permitting a travesty of justice and making the constitutional provisions under Article 300-A a mockery. 28. 54 . If the compensation to be awarded at the market value as of the year 2003 is permitted, it would amount to permitting a travesty of justice and making the constitutional provisions under Article 300-A a mockery. 28. The Hon’ble Supreme court in Ram Chand v. Union of India , [ (1994) 1 SCC 44 ] has held that: “14. … Ignoring the escalation of the market value of the lands, especially near the urban agglomeration or metropolitan cities, will amount to ignoring an earthquake and courts can certainly take judicial notice of the said fact. The interest and the solatium, which have to be paid under the provisions of the Act, are linked with the market value of the land with reference to the date of the notification under sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act. If a decision had been taken as early as in the year 1966, by issuance of declarations under Section 6, that the lands belonging to the different cultivators, who held those lands within the ceiling limit for cultivation, were needed for public purpose, respondents should have taken steps for completion of the acquisition proceedings and payment of compensation at an early date. In the present cases, unless a justification is furnished on behalf of the respondents, can it be said that the statutory power of making an award under Section 11 has been exercised within a reasonable time from the date of the declaration under Section 6? Due to escalation in prices of land, more so in this area, during the preceding two decades, in reality, the market rate, on the date of the notification under Section 4(1) is a mere fraction, of the rate prevailing at the time of its determination in the Award.” 29. In light of the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the considered opinion that the rate of market value to be adopted by the land acquisition officers should be in accordance with the prevalent market rate at the time of acquisition. If in any case a lapse of compensating the claimants has occurred then as per the ruling of the Hon’ble supreme court, the high courts are empowered to invoke their inherent powers to shift the date for calculating the compensation to a subsequent date in order to do complete and substantial justice. If in any case a lapse of compensating the claimants has occurred then as per the ruling of the Hon’ble supreme court, the high courts are empowered to invoke their inherent powers to shift the date for calculating the compensation to a subsequent date in order to do complete and substantial justice. In the instant case the rate of compensation decided by the land acquisition officer as on the date of the 4(1) notification was Rs. 2,500 per acre whereas the said amount was disbursed to the claimants on 21.05.1992, there was an inordinate delay of a decade in disbursing the compensation by the land acquisition officer. 30. Hence, for the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the view that the order of Reference Court warranting interference by this Court to ensure and justice and to secure just and fair compensation to the appellants. Therefore, the impugned order of the Reference Court in respect of granting insufficient market value is liable to be modified and this Court is of the considered view that this Appeal is liable to be allowed in part. 31. Applying the above principle laid in General Manager, ONGC Ltd (Supra) it is evident that, the rate of annual increase in market value in rural areas at best typically ranges between 5% and 7.5%. Therefore, considering the prevailing market conditions at the time of compensation disbursed, a compensation rate of Rs.10,000 per acre would have been a reasonable estimate to the appellants. 32. Accordingly, this Appeal is allowed in part, modifying the market value of the subject lands acquired from Rs.2,500/- per acre, as was fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer, to Rs.10,000/- per acre. Thus, the appellants are entitled to the consequential benefits on account of enhancement of the compensation granted herein. The remaining part of the impugned order of the Reference Court holds good.