consideration to the facts, the evidence on record and the submissions of both the sides. Exhibit A1-the copy of sale deed, on a perusal, it would show that the land was sold under the said document in the year 1982 @ Rs.34,000/- per acre and the said document was six years prior to the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, which was issued in the year 1988. The sale transaction under the said document is not shown to be a collusive transaction. On the other hand, RW1, the then RDO in his evidence had admitted that long ago some industries were established near the acquired land. In his cross-examination the names of such industries which were established were also elicited. He had also admitted the suggestion that the acquired land is adjacent to the road and that the land covered by exhibit A1 was worth about Rs.34,000/- per acre and that the Patighanapur and Nagulapally villages are already developed villages and are having all amenities like schools, transport etcetera and that there is a lot of demand for the lands in those villages. Taking into consideration the admissions of RW1, the reference Court had noted that the acquired land was having potential value as the same is situated by the side of the road and in an industrial area and that the land covered by exhibit A1 sale deed is a comparable sale. Further, considering the evidence, the reference Court had observed that PW2 had sold Acs.2-15 guntas of land out of Acs.705 guntas in Sy.No.160 of Patighanapur village under original of exhibit A1 registered sale deed in favour of D.K. Exports, Hyderabad, for Rs.30,000/- per acre and had determined the market value of the acquired land of the 5th claimant at Rs.50,000/- per acre. As the present notification for acquisition of the subject land was issued in the year 1988 and as the transaction under exhibit A1 is of the year 1982, the court below
