JUDGMENT

Arijit Pasayat, J.-Leave granted.

2. Lands of the respondents (hereinafter referred to as the claimants ) measuring 11.33 acres situated in Kammarpally village, Nizamabad District were acquired by the Government for providing house sites to weaker sections of people. The Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the Act ) was gazetted on 4.6.1988. The claimants owned small extent of lands situated in different survey numbers. The Land Acquisition Officer (in short the LAO ) passed an award fixing the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 12,325 per acre. Not accepting the compensation awarded by the LAO claimants sought for reference under Section 18 of the Act for enhancement. The Reference Court after considering the evidence, both oral and documentary, awarded compensation at the time of Rs. 10/- per sq. yard besides awarding the statutory benefits available. Before the Reference Court, several instances of sales were pressed into by the claimants. Ex. B/2 dated 18.6.1986 was for an extent of land measuring 170 sq. yards. The Ex. B/3 related to an award of the year 1981 whereunder Rs. 9/- was awarded as compensation per square yard. Ex. B/4 is the sale deed dated 23.1.1988 where extent of land was 162 square yards, and the rate of consideration was Rs. 82/- per sq. yard. Ex. B/5 is in respect of sale deed of 9.9.1985 where the extent of land was 127.5 square yards, and the sale consideration was Rs. 109/- per sq. yard. Claimants being still not satisfied with the enhanced compensation filed an appeal before the Andhra Pradesh High Court. A Division Bench of the said Court by the impugned judgment held that the market value payable to the claimants was to be taken at Rs. 55/- per sq. yard.

3. Taking into account the extent of land covered by the exemplar sale deeds and the award made in respect of acquisition during the year 1981 the High Court was of the view that the instances of sales were comparable sales in respect of the lands under acquisition. Focusing of the sale consideration of the instance covered by Ex. B/4, and making 1/3rd deduction for development, the value was fixed at Rs. 54/- per sq. yard. As there was time gap of five months between Ex. B/4 and the notification, the escalation was taken to be Rs. 1/- per sq. yard. Accordingly, the rate of Rs. 55/- per sq. yard was fixed and the statutory entitlements were also directed to be paid.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the High Court did not take note of the relevant aspects like the extent of land covered by the Exhibits, and the proximity between the dates of sales and the date of acquisition, and more importantly the fixation of rates per square yard in respect of acquisition in 1981. According to him, had these factors been considered, the rate could not have been as high as fixed by the High Court.

5. Per contra, Mrs. K. Amreshwari, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents-claimants submitted that the High Court has adopted a right approach in fixing the rates. The instances of sales related to lands which were situated at a close proximity to the acquired land. The instance of award cited by the appellant related to an interior small village and did not have the advantages which the acquired lands have.

6. Where large area is the subject matter of acquisition, rate at which small plots are sold cannot be said to be a safe criteria. Reference in this context may be made to few decisions of this Court in The Collector of Lakhimpur v. Bhuban Chandra Dutta (AIR 1971 SC 2015), Prithvi Raj Taneja (dead) by Lrs. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. (AIR 1977 SC 1560) and Smt. Kausalya Devi Bogra and Ors. etc. v. Land Acquisition Officer, Aurangabad & Anr. (AIR 1984 SC 392).

7. It cannot, however, be laid down as an absolute proposition that the rates fixed for the small plots cannot be the basis for fixation of the rate. For example, where there is no other material it may in appropriate