Shaffique, J.

1. These batch of cases concern acquisition of land for the purpose of construction of a Commercial Tax Check Post Complex at Bangara-Manjeshwar Village. The acquisition was made pursuant to two notifications under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'LA Act'). A total extent of 1.8452 hectares was notified as per Section 4(1) notification dated 29/4/2009 and 1.9312 hectares was notified for acquisition on 1/11/2009. The Land Acquisition Officer having considered seven documents placed reliance upon document No.3963/2006 of SRO, Manjeshwar to fix the land value in the case. Accordingly, the land value was fixed at Rs. 64,220/- per Are for properties covered by Section 4(1) notification dated 29/4/2009 and Rs. 49,400/- per Are for properties covered by Section 4(1) notification dated 1/11/2009.

2. Claimants objected to the above award and accordingly, the matter was referred to the Sub Court under Section 18 of the LA Act.

3. Before the Sub Court, separate evidence was adduced in different cases. Initially, judgment was delivered by the Reference Court in a few of the cases. This Court having considered the matter remitted the same to the Reference Court as per judgment in LAA No.700/2011. Similar orders were passed in LAA Nos. 696/2011, 723/13, 747/13, 782/13, 62/14, 474/14 and 496/14. The case was thereafter heard and decided. LAR Nos. 47, 48, 54, 55, 56, 57, 62 and 65/2010 were decided by a common judgment dated 23/12/2011 and the other cases were decided separately.

4. Taking into consideration the fact that the appeals arise out of cases with reference to acquisition of land in the same locality, for a common purpose and there is hardly five months difference in the date of notifications, they are heard and decided together. Following table details out the compensation awarded in each of the cases which are under consideration.

5. First we shall consider the batch of cases decided by a common judgment in LAR No.47/2010 and connected cases. For easy reference, the documents relied upon in LAR No.47/2010 are referred to unless otherwise stated. In the case on hand, the Reference Court had adopted the comparable sale method and the comparison was between document No.734/2008 of SRO Manjeswar (Ext.A1), document No.735/2008 of SRO Manjeswar (Ext.A2) and the basic document No.3963/2006 (Ext.R4).

6. There cannot be any dispute that when comparable sale method is adopted, the Court will have to assess the value of land in the nearby locality, based on comparable instances of sale. If the document relied upon reflects a genuine transaction of sale, between a willing buyer and a willing purchaser, the Court can easily place reliance upon the said document and arrive at the market value of land.

7. The nearness of the comparable sale deeds to the acquired land is an important factor to be considered while comparing the sale instances with that of the acquired property.