JUDGMENT

H. R. KHANNA, J.: — This is an appeal on the certificate under Article 133 (1) (a) of the Constitution against the judgment of the Patana High Court whereby the appeal of the respondent-State against the award of the learned Additional District Judge, Arrah was allowed in part and the amount of compensation payable to the respondent in a land acquisition case was reduced.

2. The respondent-State acquired 23.70 acres of the appellants land out of plots Nos. 529 and 1262 appertaining to Khata No. 1 in village Tenduni in Shahbad district for the purpose of constructing an Irrigation Research Station. Notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was first published on March 8, 1957, but this notification was cancelled on December 2, 1957. Another notification for the acquisition of the said land was issued under Section 4 of the Act on January 1, 1959. The land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation to the appellant at the rate of Rs. 3,000 per acre, besides certain other amounts with which we are not concerned. The total compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer came to Rs. 86,070.92. The appellant got a reference made under Section 18 of the Act. Learned Additional District Judge, Arrah who disposed of the reference held the market value of the land to be Rs. 800 per katha. It is stated that there are 32 kathas in an acre. On appeal by the State the High Court assessed the market value of the land at Rs. 475 per katha.

3. In appeal before us, learned counsel, for the appellant has assailed the judgment of the High Court and has contended that the High Court was in error in reducing the rate at which compensation had been awarded. As against that, learned counsel for the respondent-State has canvassed for the correctness of the view taken by the High Court.

4. We have given the matter our consideration, and are of the view that there is no merit in this appeal. A number of documents were filed on behalf of the State to show the market value of the land in question. Those documents showed that a plot measuring 66 acres in the same villages, in which the land in dispute is situated, was sold for Rs. 2,000 on March 13, 1958 at the rate of Rs. 94 per katha. Another sale transaction related to the sale 22.5 decimals of land on November 22, 1958 at the rate of Rs. 58 per katha. A third transaction related to the sale of .06 acre of land for Rs. 100 on August 12,1957 at the rate of Rs. 52 per katha. The Additional District Judge excluded these sale transaction out of consideration on the ground that the plots which were the subject-matter of those sales where at some distance from the acquired land. The High Courttook the view, in our opinion rightly, that these sale transactions could not be excluded altogether from consideration. The High Court also took into account three other sale transactions which had been relied upon by the appellant. Those sale transactions related to sale of five dhurs of the land for Rs. 275 on October 19,1957 at the rate of Rupees 1, 100 per katha, 15 dhurs of land for Rs. 750 November 5, 1956 at the rate of Rs. 1,000 per katha and 15 dhurs of land for Rs. 750 on September 28,1956 at the rate of Rs. 1,000 per katha. One katha is said to consist of 20 dhurs. The land which was the subject of these sale transactions abutted the road and, from the small size of the plots, it appears that they were purchased for the purpose of constructing shops or similar buildings thereon. The land now sought to be acquired does not abut the road. It is in evidence that in making acquisition the strip of the land of the appellant up to a depth of 100 ft. from the road was not acquired. The High Court on taking into consideration the above three sale transactions relied upon by the appellant and three sale transactions relied upon by the respondent found that the mean price of the land covered by the six sale deeds to be a little more than Rs. 460 per katha. Th