ORDER

1. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the Act), acquiring an extent of 20 acres of land in Survey No.24/2 situated in Akola town for construction of the houses to weaker sections and middle income group people, was published in the State Gazette on August 11, 1965. The Land Acquisition Officer in his award dated March 26, 1971 determined the market value of the front portion of land admeasuring 4 acres 18 gunthas at Rs.5,500/- per acre and for the rest of 15 acres and 32 gunthas at 4,500/- per acres. Dissatisfied therewith, the appellant sought reference under Section 18 of the Act and the Senior Civil Judge in his award and decree dated September 26, 1972 enhanced the compensation in respect of the lands in the front portion at Rs.1.25 per sq. ft. and to the rest of the land at Rs.1/- per sq. ft. He also deducted Rs.3,000/- per acre towards development charges and 30% land was left over for roads etc. On appeal by the State and also on cross appeal by the appellant, by judgment and decree dated July 28,1980 the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court set aside the award and decree of the Reference Court and confirmed that of the Land Acquisition Officer. Thus this appeal by special leave.

2. It is true, as noted by the Reference Court and also accepted by the High Court, that the lands are situated in a developing area surrounded by roads on three sides and the lands had potential value for development for building purposes. Shri Mohta, learned senior counsel for the appellant contended that the High Court totally omitted to consider Exh.38, a sale deed dated May 14, 1964, in respect of lands of an extent of 5392 sq. ft. for aconsideration of Rs.4,000/- as spoken by PW-6, the son of the vendee and Ex.44 6950 sq. ft. for consideration of Rs.5,000-as spoken by PW-8, the clerk of the vendee who was formerly an advocate and also was an ex-M.P. These two documents having been executed 18 months preceding the date of the acquisition and the Reference Court having accepted them to be reflective of having had the same potentialities, since the lands are situated adjacent to the acquired land, they would establish comparable value. The High Court committed obvious illegality in not considering this material evidence. Therefore, the judgment and decree of the High Court is vitiated by error of law.

3. Though, initially, we were inclined to accept the contention of Shri Mohta, on perusal of evidence on record, we find it difficult to give acceptance to the contention. It is an admitted fact that the claimant as PW-9 admitted in the cross-examination that in the year 1957 he purchased the very same entire 20 acres of land for Rs. 10,000/-. He claimed to be a protected tenant but the High Court did not accept the status as protected tenant since no documentary evidence in proof thereof was filed. Be it as it may, the fact remains that he admitted that in 1957, he purchased the self-same 20 acres of land for Rs. 10,000/-. In other words, he estimated the value of the same land in 1957 taking all potentiality at Rs. 10,000/-. He also stated in the cross-examination that the market value of the lands had increased ten times from 1957 to 1965. In other words, according to his estimate the acquired land commands market value in 1965 for a total consideration of around Rs.1 lakh. The Land Acquisition Officer determined the market value at Rs.5,500-and Rs.4,500/- to the different portions of the land. On belting by average it worked out at a total consideration of Rs.1 lakh.

4. The question, therefore, is whether the High Court has committed any manifest error of law or had applied any wrong principle of law in determining the compensation and whether its failure to consider Ex.38 and 44 does make any difference. Having given our consideration to the contention of Shri Mohta, we think that the High Court had not committed any manifest error of law or omitted to apply any correct principle of law. It i