The market value of agricultural land has to be determined with reference to the date on which preliminary notification was published in the State Gazette proposing its acquisition and according to the price which a buyer interested in agriculture would have paid for it to the owner having regard to its soil, the irrigation and other facilities, it commanded for its maximum utilisation, for agricultural purposes.

( 1 ) THE present Appeal has been preferred by the Land Acquisition Officer against the decree and Judgment of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Warangal in O. P. NO. 118 of 1984, dated 24-4-1987. The cross-objections have also been filed by the respondents/claimants seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. Therefore, both the Appeal and cross- objections are dealt with in this order.

( 2 ) A total extent of Ac. 30-01 gt. , consisting of Ac. 20-18gts. wet land and ac. 9-23 gts. dry land was acquired by the Government for the purpose of construction of Kakatiya main canal from K. M. 231 to 232. These lands are situate in S. Nos. 15,17 to 20, 22 to 30, 37 to 40, 1, 2, 70 and 336 of Deshaipet and Enumamila villages abutting Warangal town. The Gazette Notification under section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 16-3-1979 and the possession of land was taken on 25-6-1980. The Land Acquistion Officer passed awards in two spells. The first award was passed on 27-8-1982 in Award no. 1/82-83 and the second award was passed on 5-2-1983 in Award no. 2/82-83. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed the compensation @ rs. 3,377/- and Rs. 5,050/- per acre in respect of the wet lands and rs. 3,077/ - in respect of the dry lands. He also fixed the compensation in respect of wells which are existing in the acquired land belonging to the claimants. Aggrieved by the fixation of the compensation, the claimants soughta reference to the Civil Court under Section 18. On reference, the Civil Court adjudicated the matter in O. P. No. 118/84. Ten witnesses were examined for the claimants and Exs. A-1 to 10 were marked. Two witnesses were examined for the respondents and Exs. B-1 to B-15 were marked. The Civil Court passed judgment and decree on 24-4-1987 enhancing the compensation from rs. 5,050/- per acre in respect of the wet lands to Rs. 18/- per sq. yard and from Rs. 3,077/- per acre to Rs. 15/- per sq. yard in respect of the dry lands. Similarly, the court below enhanced the compensation in respect of the wells belonging to the claimants. Aggrieved by the said enhancement, the present Appeal has been preferred by the Land Acquisition Officer.

( 3 ) THE learned Government Pleader for the Appellant submits that the court below erred in enchancing the compensation basing on the sale deeds filed by the claimants which are neither admissible in evidence nor the parties concerned in the transaction were examined in support of the documents. He also submits that the lower court erred in rejecting the Award of the Land acquisition Officer without proper consideration. He also submits that the sale deeds filed by the Claimants for the purpose of claiming the enhanced compensation cannot be relied on inasmuch as the lands covered by the said sale deeds are situated far away from the acquired lands and that the said lands are in Warangal Municipality. Hence, he submits that the proper evaluation of the documents has not been done by the court below. Lastly, he submits that enhancement in respect of wells is also unwarranted and there is no evidence adduced by the claimants in support of their claim for enhancement.

( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the Claimants Sri. V. Rajendra Babu and Sri B. Narayana Reddy submit that the reasons assigned by the court below are quite legal and valid. The lands are situate abutting the peripheral area of Warangal municipality and some of me lands are partially situate in Municipality and some of mem are outside Municipality area. But however all the lands are within the urban agglomeration and they have a potential value for the construction of houses and therefore the enhancement ordered by the court below is quite reasonable and justified. Hence, they submit that there are no irregularities or illegalities in the judgment under appeal and the same has to be confirmed in appeal.

( 5 ) IT is not in dispute that various aspects have to be considered while deal