JUDGMENT

K. N. SAKIA, J. :— This Civil Appeal by special leave is from the order dated 10 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. Jabalpur in Misc (F) Appeal No. 78 of 1974. allowing the appeal and enhancing compensation for land acquired by the Improvement Trust, Bhopal.

2. The Improvement Trust. Bhopal, hereinafter referred to as the Trust. acquired 152 acres of land of Village Jamalpura by Notification dated 30th April. 1965 issued under S. 68 of the Madhya Pradesh Town improvement Trust Act, 1960, hereinafter referred to as the Act, and took possession of the land sometimes in June, 1967. Out of these acquired land the instant appellant owned 12.62 acres whereupon stood a house, a well and some trees. The whole of the acquired land including that of the appellant was within the limits of Bhopal Municipal Corporation. On 25-3-1966 Notification under S. 71 of the Act was issued vesting the land in the Trust. The Trust offered compensation at the rate of Rs. 950 per acre (@ 14 paise per sqr ft) amounting to Rs. 11,997.00: for the well Rs. 3, 108; and for the trees Rs. 8 15 and for compulsory acquisition 15% amounting to Rs. 2,400 . The appellant made reference, No. 8 of 1970 to the Compensation Tribunal under S. 72 (3 of the Act. The Tribunal awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 6,000 per acre (Rs. 0.28 Paise per sqr. ft) for the land, Rs. 5,000 for the building, Rs. 3,000 for the well and Rs. 815 for the trees. Thus the Tribunal by its award dated 25th November. 1972 awarded a total sum of Rs. 1,20,060 inclusive of interest as compensation to the appellant, as against his claim at the rate of Rs. 20,000 per acre for the land, Rs. 20,000 for the building, Rs. 5,000 for the well. Rs. 2,500 for the trees and Rs. 10,000 for loss of business and earnings, his total claim amounting to Rs. 13,39,560. On appeal, being. Misc (F) Appeal No. 78 of 1974, the High Court maintained the award in respect of the Building, well and the trees, but enhanced the compensation in respect of the land determining the market value at Rs. 12,000 per acre and the total area being 12.62 acres the total compensation inclusive of that allowed for the house etc. and 15% solatium worked out to Rs. 1,84.293. Dissatisfied, the appellant obtained leave and filed this appeal.

3. Dr. L M. Singhvi learned counsel for the appellant submits, inter alia, that the house and the well were grossly undervalued, that both the Tribunal as well as the High Court misdirected themselves in treating the land as agricultural land but not as urbanised developed land on the erroneous ground that there was no building activity of substantial nature at the time of acquisition in spite of the fact that a part of the land was already converted to Abadi: that both the Tribunal as well as the High Court failed to take into consideration the potential value of the land; and that evidence of sales of similar plots was not accepted on the ground that those pertained to small plots; and that the High Court committed an error when it deducted the development charge from the agreed price instead of adding it to the agreed price while calculating the market value.

4. Mr. Krishnamurthi learned counsel for the respondent Trust submits that the house and the well were properly valued; that it was not correct that the Tribunal did not correctly consider the question of the nature of the land which it held to be agricultural because it did not find therein any building activity of substantial nature. At any rate, counsel submits, the High Court took into consideration the potential value of the land and as such there was no omission to consider any relevant material or misdirection in this regard. Counsel, however, fails to explain the reason of deducting the development charge from the agreed price, instead of adding it. While calculating market value of the lands on the basis of evidence produced by the claimant. This, however, according to counsel, is not a sufficient ground for our interference