JUDGMENT : Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao, J. A common order was delivered in LAOP No.52 of 1999 and in LAOP No.66 of 1999 along with other LAOPs. The present land acquisition appeals i.e., LAAS No.326 and 329 of 2008 are filed against LAOP Nos. 52 of 1999 and 66 of 1999 respectively on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Penukonda, as such these appeals are disposed vide common order. 2. Requisition department through letter No.339/M/dt. 17.02.1990 has requested the Land Acquisition Department to extent of Acres 1,170 of Peddakotla Village of acquire an Tadimarri Mandal for construction of reservoir. As facts have not correctly or properly placed on record basing on the narration of facts a draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “Act”) and a draft declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published on 13.03.1995 in the gazette was approved on 04.03.1995 invoking urgency clause under Section 17 (4) by dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5A of the Act for acquisition, a piece of land in an extent of Ac.23-29 cents for the purpose of balancing reservoir of Chitravathi and the said acquisition has finally come to an end on hectic efforts made by the Government and paid an amount of Rs.60,25,207/- (in words Sixty lakh Twenty Five thousand Two Hundred and Seven rupees) for total extent of Ac.23-29 cents of land vide award number 13/1996. 3. Different survey numbers (26 in number) of lands were acquired and the land for an extent of Ac.3.44 1/2 cents in Sy.No.509 was acquired of the appellant in LAAS No.326 of 2008 and land in an extent of Ac.7-73 1/2 cents in Sy.No:511/1 of the appellant in LASS No. 329 of 2008 was acquired for the aforesaid purpose. 4. The Land Acquisition Officer has categorized the acquired land into 5 (five) different groups for the payment of compensation acre wise and the same is shown in the below table: Group-1 Group-2 Group-3 Group-4 Group-5 Rs. 40,000/- Rs. 40,000/- Rs. 25,000/- Rs. 55,000/- No value fixed 5. The land of the appellants in Sy.Nos. 509 and 511/1 fall under group 4 (four) and the land value fixed at the rate of Rs.55,000/- per acre. Nothing was stated by the reference Court, for arriving of the land value in 5 different categories by the LAO. 6. 40,000/- Rs. 40,000/- Rs. 25,000/- Rs. 55,000/- No value fixed 5. The land of the appellants in Sy.Nos. 509 and 511/1 fall under group 4 (four) and the land value fixed at the rate of Rs.55,000/- per acre. Nothing was stated by the reference Court, for arriving of the land value in 5 different categories by the LAO. 6. Being aggrieved by the fixation of land value at the rate of Rs.55,000/- by the LAO, the appellants herein have received the amount on protest and pressed to refer the award to the reference Court under Section 18 of the Act. Accordingly the award was referred to the reference Court, it was registered as LAOP Nos. 52 and 66 of the appellants herein along with some other LAOPs of other claimants. 7. As many as 21 claimants were examined and the claimants have unequivocally stated that the acquired lands is adjoining to the village and is suitable for house sites and hayrick yards and holds good value, and the claimants further stated that there was great demand for the house sites even before the acquisition took place hence urged the reference court to fix the land value at the rate Rs.4,000/- per cent which they considered is- just and appropriate. In fact the Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) acknowledged in the award that the land falls under category 4, suitable for house sites and is adjacent to the village. However, despite this finding, the reference court determined the value to be Rs.55,000/- per acre. 8. The reference Court disregarded the documents filed by the claimants simply observing that the documents does not reflect the true market value while doing so has failed to provide any valid reasons for disregarding the documentary evidence presented by the claimants inter alia it is further observed that draft notification and declaration was published in the gazette in the March 1995 prior to 1990 there is strong move on the part of the government in acquiring the lands. 9. 9. LAO was examined as RW-1 and testified that the sale deeds which were marked by the claimants vide Ex A1 to A15 were created and brought into existence solely to claiming higher compensation and he further stated that the claimants were aware that the lands they intended to acquire were already identified for requisition, as indicated by a letter dated 17.02.1990 from the Executive Engineer of the Requisition Department  (P.V.C. Division Pulivendula) albeit this letter was not formally marked as evidence. Additionally, the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition Department Sri T.S. Rayulu raised another contention that the documents that are relied by the claimants are small extents which would normally fetch more value and cannot be relied or believed on. This additional issue answered in the following: 10. This Court places the reliance of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Administrator General of W.B. v. Collector, Varanasi reported in 1988 (2) SCC 150 , the Supreme Court after referring to its earlier decisions has stated thus: It is trite proposition that prices fetched for small plots cannot form safe bases for valuation of large tracts of land as the two are not comparable properties. See Collector of Lakhimpur v. B.C. Dutta reported in AIR 1971 SC 2015 ; Mirza Nausherwan Khan v. Collector (Land Acquisition), Hyderabad reported in 1975(1) SCC 238 ; Padma Uppal v. State of Punjab reported in 1977 (1) SCC 330 ; Smt. Kaushalya Devi Bogra v. Land Acquisition Officer, Aurangabad reported in 1984 (2) SCC 324 , the principle that evidence of market value of sales of small, developed plots is not a safe guide in valuing large extents of land has to be understood in its proper perspective. 11. It is held by the Supreme Court that the price fetched for small plots cannot form safe basis for valuation of large tracts and the prices fetched for small developed plots cannot be directly adopted in valuing large extents except, however, after making necessary deductions for development expenses. The principle laid down ,in the above judgment is that where there is no sale- deed for a large area of land, the sale-deeds for small extents of lands also can be,taken into consideration. The principle laid down ,in the above judgment is that where there is no sale- deed for a large area of land, the sale-deeds for small extents of lands also can be,taken into consideration. But as the said price reflects only retail price, sufficient deduction has to be made taking into consideration all the amenities to be provided to the acquired land, having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case. 12. In the present case on hand, though exhibits that are filed are small bits, the value of the land exceeds more than Rupees Four lakhs per acre. However, the claimants have restricted their claim at the rate of Rs. 1,10,000/- per acre as such the exhibits relied by the appellants claimants can be relied on and the land is not acquired for the purpose of house sites or for other amenities; land acquired for balancing reservoir of Chitravathi Therefore, no deductions should be applied. 13. Therefore, we are not able to agree with the contention of  the learned Government Pleader Sri T.S. Rayulu that the sale deeds. Ex. A-3 to A10 and other documents under which a small extents of land was sold cannot be taken into consideration at all. 14. The arguing counsel Sri Raja Reddy Koneti for K. Viswanatha Reddy would submit that order of the learned reference court is erroneous, the court failed to look into Ex A15 dated 04.02.1987 which is long prior to the notification issued under section 4 of the act and the market value no longer less than Rs. 3,390/- per cent at any time and further stated that the reference court failed to appreciate the evidence of the claimants more particularly of P.W. 20 in correct perspective hence solicited and restricted the claim for fixation of the land value at the rate of Rs. 1100 per cent at the rate Rs.1,10,000/- per acre with all consequential benefits under the Act. And relied on the following three judgments of the Apex Court. 1100 per cent at the rate Rs.1,10,000/- per acre with all consequential benefits under the Act. And relied on the following three judgments of the Apex Court. (1) Ravinder Narain and another Vs Union of India reported in (2003) 4 SCC 481 : AIR 2003 SC 1987 for the proposition: “That the element of speculation is reduced to minimum if the underlying principles of fixation of market value with reference to comparable sales are made: (i) when sale is within reasonable time of the date of notification undef S. 4(1) (ii) it should be bonafide transaction (iii) it should be of the land acquired or of the land adjacent to the land acquired (iv) it should possess similar advantages. It is only these factors are present it can merit a consideration as a comparable case.” (2) Narendra and others Vs State of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in (2017) 9 SCC 426 for the proposition that “Grant of higher compensation to landowners who had not approached court, but covered under same Section 4 notification. Held from bare reading of Section 28A and spirit contained therein, in absence of exemplars and other evidence, higher compensation can be allowed for others whose land was acquired under same notification. (3) Mehrawal Khawaja Trust (Registered) Faridkot and others Vs. State of Punjab and others reported in (2012) 5 SCC 432 for the proposition that the transaction appeared to be bonafide, cannot be eschew it without valid reason.” 15. Invariably the land acquired located at adjacent to the village and potential lands as reflected in the award itself and as per exhibits as marked as Ex A1 to A15 the land value is more than Rs.4,000/- per cent. The primary and vehement argument of the Government Counsel appeared before the reference court and before this court, for the state is that the all the exhibits that were marked as Ex A1 to A15 were created and brought into existence in-anticipation solely to claim higher compensation and further stated that the claimants were aware that the lands they intended to acquire for the purpose of reservoir. 16. 16. Even assuming that for a while the contention raised by the counsel for the government that the claimants have created documents in-anticipation for the purpose of claiming higher compensation there is no evidence lead to that affect and no suggestion was made to the claimants before reference court to that extent that the documents filed by the claimants are created in-anticipation for the purpose of claiming higher compensation. The reference court has not even discussed to the said contention and no reasons were assigned for'discrediting the evidence produced by the claimants. 17. It is the primary contention of the respondents based on the proceeding from the requisition department to the acquisition department vide letter No: 339/M/dt. 17-02-1990 (a document that is not marked) in anticipation the claimants have generated the documents. The claimants cannot take for granted that .their lands will be acquired by the government within 4 to 5 years, as indicated by the requisition department's correspondence with the acquisition department, nor can they expect this to happen within 10 years from the draft notification and declaration published in March 1995. Nonetheless, this assumption is stated without any supporting evidence, and the said proceedings in question have been circulated in the locality. That the claimants cannot presume that after a period of 4 to 5 years their lands will be acquired by the Government. As seen from the sale deeds that were marked as Ex A3 to A10 and A15 ranges from the year 1983 to 1989 where the requisition department addressed a letter to the acquisition department is in the year 1990 and no sensible person would spend money on registration fees based on the assumption that the government would acquire the land and that they could claim a higher compensation after 4 or 5 years prior to the requisition. It can be inferred that a transaction involving one or two documents was prepared in anticipation of seeking a higher compensation rather than 15 documents for claiming higher compensation. Hence the contention of the government counsel is untenable without leading any evidence to that effect. It is not known as to how several years before itself such a document could have been created anticipating land Acquisition. Hence the contention of the government counsel is untenable without leading any evidence to that effect. It is not known as to how several years before itself such a document could have been created anticipating land Acquisition. Further, by any stretch of imagination, it cannot be said that the claimant can visualize, foresee or anticipate acquisition of land in future date and executed Ex.A-3 to A10 arid A 15 sale deeds. In such an event, the genuineness of Ex. A3 to A10 and /A15 sale deeds cannot be doubted. 18. The Apex Court in "Viluben Jhalejar Contractor v. State of Gujarat reported in 2005 (4) SCC 789 laid down the following principles for determination of market value of the acquired land: One of the principles for determination of the amount of compensation for acquisition of land would be the willingness of an informed buyer to offer the price therefor. It is beyond any cavil that the price of the land which a willing and informed buyer would offer would be different in the  cases where the owner is in possession and enjoyment of the property and in the cases where he is not. Market value is ordinarily the price the property may fetch in the open market if sold by a willing seller unaffected by the special needs of a particular purchase. Where definite material is not forthcoming either in the shape of sales of similar lands in the neighbourhood at or' about the date of notification Under Section 4(1) or otherwise, other sale instances as well as other evidences have to be considered. The amount of compensation cannot be ascertained with mathematical accuracy. A comparable instance has to be identified having regard to the proximity from time angle as well as proximity from situation angle. For determining the market value of the land under  acquisition, suitable adjustment has to be made having regard to various positive and negative factors vis-a-vis the land under acquisition by placing the two in juxtaposition. A comparable instance has to be identified having regard to the proximity from time angle as well as proximity from situation angle. For determining the market value of the land under  acquisition, suitable adjustment has to be made having regard to various positive and negative factors vis-a-vis the land under acquisition by placing the two in juxtaposition. The positive and negative factors are as under: Positive factors Negative factors (i) smallness of size (i) largeness :Of area (ii) proximity to a road (ii) situation in the interior at a distance from he road (iii) frontage on a road (iii) narrow strip of land with very small frontage compared to depth (iv) nearness to developed area (iv) lower level requiring the depressed portion to be filled up (v) regular shape (v) remoteness from developed locality (vi) level vis-a-vis land under acquisition (vi) some special disadvantageous factors which would deter a purchaser (vii) special value for an owner of an adjoining property to whom it may have some very special advantage 19. The Hon’ble Apex Court in "Atma Singh v. State of Haryana" reported in (2008) 2 SCC 568 , held in the following: "Determination of market value of a land acquired in terms of the provisions of the said Act depends upon a large number of factors; the first being the nature and quality of the land, i.e., whether agricultural land or homestead land. Apart from nature and quality of land in the event the agricultural lands are acquired the other factors relevant therefor are also required to be considered, namely, as to whether they are irrigation, location of the land, closeness thereof from any road or highway, the evenness of land, its position in different seasons particularly in rainy season, existence , [irrigated or non-irrigated, extent of facilities available for] any building or structure as also the development in and around the area. A host of other factors will also have a bearing on determining the valuation of land." 20. The reference Court has failed to assign any reasons for the contention raised by the Government Counsel or the Claimant or has assigned any valid reasons independently except the observation that “the documents produced by the claimants would not reflect the true consideration” and they can be negatived. The reference Court has failed to assign any reasons for the contention raised by the Government Counsel or the Claimant or has assigned any valid reasons independently except the observation that “the documents produced by the claimants would not reflect the true consideration” and they can be negatived. And it is an admitted fact and it is stated in the award itself that the land that are acquired are potential lands and useful for house site purposes and are adjacent to the village. 21. Therefore, without any hesitation that the document Ex A3 to A10 can be safely relied on, and the market value fetches more than Rs.4,000/- per cent which come to Rs.4,00,000/- (in words four lakh) per acre which are much prior to Section 4(1) of the Act and much prior to request made by the Requisition Department to the Acquisition Department i.e., in the year 1990. 22. As the appellants/claimants restricted their claim. accordingly this Court allow the appeals fixing the compensation at the rate of Rs.1,10,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Ten Thousand) per acre and the respondents are directed to pay the enhanced compensation calculating @ Rs.1,10,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Ten Thousand only) per acre. It is needless to say that the appellants/ claimants are entitled to all the benefits under the enhanced compensation under the Land Acquisition Act 1894. However, no costs. Interlocutory Applications if any pending in these land acquisition appeals, shall stand closed.