express condition, there are numerous instances where this Court 3 AIR 1959 SC 429. 4 Shaji Kuriakose v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., (2001) 7 SCC 650. 19 | Pagehas laid down that the sale exemplars executed after the Section 4 notification should not ordinarily be relied upon.5 This is grounded in the reasoning that once the acquisition process begins, it can impact the valuation of the land, rendering subsequent sale exemplars to be potentially inaccurate reflections of the true valuation of the acquired land. This principle was cogently addressed by this Court in A. Natesam Pillai v. Tahsildar,6 which held that the commencement of acquisition often leads to an increase in the market values of adjacent lands, thereby discrediting post-notification transactions as reliable indicators of the acquired land’s value. 21. Having been equipped with the factors to be considered while selecting a comparable sale instance to draw an estimate from, it is perhaps suitable to tackle the core