JUDGMENT

GOSWAMI, J.:—The only question that arises for consideration in these appeals by certificate of the High Court of Judicature at Madras relates to the quantum of compensation with regard to acquisition of 18.34 acres of land in Mulligoor village, Nilgiris District, belonging to the respondents.

2. The land in question was acquired for the purpose of a hydroelectric scheme at Kundah. A Notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was duly published on May 1, 1957. This land was purchased by the respondents father by a sale deed (Ext. B-1) of February 22, 1951, for a consideration of Rs.4,218/4/- from the Nilgiris Wattle Plantations Limited. The rate at which the purchase was made was Rs.230/- per acre. The Collector awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.500/- per acre. On a reference at the instance of the claimants (respondents herein) the Subordinate Judge raised the compensation to Rs.1800/- per acre. The State as well as the claimants appealed to the High Court against the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge. By a common judgment the High Court dismissed the State s appeal and partly allowed the claimants appeal by raising the rate of compensation to Rs.3000/- per acre. That is how the two appeals are filed by the State with certificate from the High Court.

3. The learned Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the 652 State submits that the High Court erred in law in raising the rate of compensation without any basis and merely on speculation. He particularly draws our attention to an observation of the High Court in the judgment to the effect:

".........the Court has necessarily to speculate as to how much the value has increased. Sometimes the Court is obliged to indulge in fair measure of conjecture in regard to the fixation of values......."

4. However, when we read the entire observation of the High Court with regard to the aspect of compensation we are unable to hold that the High Court based the compensation on mere speculation or conjecture. The High Court has clearly observed that-

"........fortunately in this case our decision need not depend upon mere speculation or conjecture as there are materials which as far as possible afford a correct basis for fixing the approximate market value."

5. The learned Solicitor General next draws our attention to the various sale deeds produced in the case and took objection to the High Court s placing undue importance on two awards (Exts. B-10 and B-11) dated September 27, 1956 and March 30, 1957, respectively. According to the learned Solicitor General these two awards are with regard to land at a place called Kil Kundah about ten miles from the acquired land and cannot be said to be comparable land for the purpose of assessment of compensation. According to the first award (B-10) the rate per acre was Rs.3000/- and according to the second one (B-11) the rate awarded was Rs.5263/- per acre. He also submits that the sale deed (Ex. A-7) of September 27, 1955, which appertains to land in the identical village Mulligoor and which shows the consideration of Rs.5000/- for one acre of land should not have been taken as a guide in view of the fact that the area was small with a large number of wattle trees and it was a speculative transaction.

6. There are three other sale deeds which the High Court took into consideration, namely, Exts. A-8, A-9 and A-10 which were transactions between March 1956 and June 1956. The land involved in these transactions was situated in Bikatti village about four miles from the acquired land. The village itself is only 2 to 4 furlongs from Mulligoor. The rate per acre for these lands in 1956 was Rs.6000/-. The learned Solicitor General submits that these lands were sold as house sites and therefore cannot be safeguides for the type of the land acquired. The learned Solicitor General also objected to the flat rate of Rs.3000/- granted by the High Court without due regard to the quality or classification of the land. H