( 1 ) THE owner of the acquired land not being satisfied with the compensation awarded by the Civil Court has filed this appeal calling in question the legality and validity of the judgment and award dated 24th March, 2001 passed in LAC No. 551 of 1994 on the file of the Court of the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Gulbarga (for short, 'the Civil Court' ). By the impugned award the Civil Court has awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 61,000/- per acre for 3 acres 10 guntas of converted land and at the rate of Rs. 43,000/- per acre with regard to 1 acre 20 guntas of agricultural land.

( 2 ) THE facts of the case in brief are as follows: the State acting through the respondent-Land Acquisition Officer (for short, 'the LAO'), and in exercise of eminent domain power acquired 1 acre 20 guntas of land comprised in Survey No. 12/1/1b and 3 acres 10 guntas of converted land in Survey No. 12/2/2b both situate in Chandapur Village in chincholi Taluk, Gulbarga District (for short, 'the schedule land') for a public purpose, to wit, for construction of Mini Vidhana Soudha and hospital buildings by issuing Section 4 (1) notification dated 22-1-1990 under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act' ). The LAO after conducting award enquiry passed an award on 30-9-1992 determining the market value at the rate of Rs. 15,000/- per acre with regard to non-agricultural land and at the rate of Rs. 8,000/- per acre with regard to agricultural land, by placing reliance on sales statistics. The owner of the acquired land not being satisfied with the rate of compensation awarded by the lao sought reference of her claim under Section 18 of the Act for more compensation and on such reference being made, the Civil Court placing reliance on Ex. P. 8 sale document dated 8-4-1986 by the impugned award determined the market value at the rate of Rs. 61,000/- per acre with regard to non-agriculture land and at the rate of Rs. 43,000/- per acre with regard to agricultural land. The owner of the acquired land still not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation has approached this Court by way of this appeal. 2-A. We have heard Sri Madhava Reddy, learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri K. P. Ashok Kumar, learned Additional Government advocate for land acquisition. Sri Madhava Reddy would contend that no exception could be taken for the Civil Court to place reliance on Ex. P. 8 sale document for determination of the market value. The Civil Court has seriously erred in law in making deduction at 2 tires in arriving at the market value of the acquired land as on the date of Section 4 (1) notification. Sri madhava Reddy would also contend that in determining the market value the civil Court has not appreciated the high potentiality of the acquired land which could be compared to the land covered by Ex. P. 8 sale deed. Sri madhava Reddy would also contend that there is an error apparent on the face of the award inasmuch as the Civil Court has not at all allowed appreciation in the market value for a period of 4 years while determining the market value of the acquired land. The learned Government Advocate for land acquisition, on the other hand, at the threshold, would highlight that the land covered by ex. P. 8 sale deed cannot be compared to the acquired land for the simple reason that the land covered by Ex. P. 8 is just adjacent to a bus stand situated in the Chincholi, whereas the acquired lands are situate in Chandapur Village 1 k. m. away from the bus station. In that view of the matter, according to the learned Government Advocate, the Civil Court was justified in deducting 50% from the value fetched for the land covered by Ex. P. 8 on that count itself. Learned Government Advocate would also support the action of the civil Court in further deducting 33% and 53% respectively in determining the market value in the case of non-agricultural land and the agricultural land. In sum and substance the a