The main legal point established in the judgment is that the fixation of market value under the Land Acquisition Act must be supported by evidence and the proper rate should be determined based on the totality of evidence and exemplars.

( 1 ) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.

( 2 ) THE present appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 31-7-1996 in Appeal No. 1560 of 1989 passed by the High Court of Andhra pradesh at Hyderabad.

( 3 ) THE questions raised by the appellant are: (A) Whether the High Court is justified in fixing the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs 90,000 per acre on the facts and circumstances of this case? (B) Whether the High Court is justified in placing reliance on exhibits A-1 and A-2, the sale deeds in which the respondents are the vendors?

( 4 ) IN order to appreciate the controversy, it is necessary to give short facts.

( 5 ) A notification under Section 4 (1) was issued on 19-2-1983 under the land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") for the acquisition of 9 acres of land in Chityal village of Warangal district for providing house sites to the weaker sections. On 18-6-1983 the possession of the said land was taken. The Land Acquisition Officer considering the various sale deeds fixed the market value of the land at the rate of Rs 10,000 per acre. The respondents not satisfied, preferred reference under Section 18 of the said Act. The referring court fixed the market value at the rate of Rs 12,000 per acre. The respondents, still not satisfied, filed an appeal in the High court. The High Court allowed the appeal of the respondents by enhancing the rate of land to Rs 90,000 per acre relying on the sale deeds Exhibits A-1 and A-2. The relevant sale deeds considered by the High Court which call for our consideration are Exhibit A-l dated 7-4-1980, Exhibit A-2 dated 9-4- 1980, Exhibit A-3 dated 16-2-1983 and Exhibit A-6 dated 28-5-1980. So far as Exhibits A-1, A-2, A-3 are concerned, each one of them are of 20 guntas of land (half acre), while Exhibit A-6 is of 3 guntas of land. We are informed 40 guntas make one acre.

( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant submits, this exorbitant increase by the High Court from Rs 12,000 per acre to Rs 90,000 per acre is unsustainable. This increase is largely conjectural and could not be justified on the facts and circumstances of the present case. One submission for the appellant is, the High Court while relying upon Exhibits A-l and A-2 which are of April 1980, three years prior to Section 4 notification should not have enhanced the rate of compensation from the rate in the said sale deeds by rs 10,000 per acre per year, as it is based on no evidence. Reference is also made to the panchnama which is recorded at the time of enquiry and referred to in the order passed by the Subordinate Judge wherein the value of the land recorded is Rs 60,000 per acre. Relevant portion is quoted hereunder:"pw 1 is the first claimant Vijender Reddy. He deposed that claimants 2 and 3 are his younger brothers, that at the time of the enquiry there was a panchnama, wherein the value of the land in question was fixed at Rs 60,000 per acre. "

( 7 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant also refers to Exhibit C-3 which is application dated 23-1-1984 by the claimants to the District Collector which records that the Tahsildar, Chityal had negotiated with them and they agreed for a compensation of Rs 12,000 per acre and in fact in the last para of the same they agreed as an undertaking to part with the said land for the consideration of Rs 11,000 per acre as a negotiated price. The submission is, in this background, the fixation of rate of compensation at the rate of rs 90,000 per acre cannot be sustained. In addition, submission is, no deduction for the development charge has been made in fixing the rate. He further submits, no reliance can be placed on Exhibit A-6, it being of a very small piece of land when the acquisition in question is of a large block of land i. e. 9 acres. He submits, the price fixed for small developed block is only the retail price, hence the deduction has to be made from such price as acquisition of large acquired land is the wholesale price. Relian