JUDGMENT

AGANNATHA SHETTY, J.

( 1 ) WE grant special leave and proceed to dispose of these appeals.

( 2 ) THESE appeals are from a judgment dated 30/12/1985 of the High court of Andhra Pradesh in a batch of appeals arising out of land acquisition proceedings. The lands in question are situated in Hasanapur of Karimnagar Taluk. The lands are acquired for the purpose of submergence under Lower Manair Dam Reservoir project. S. 4 (1 notification was issued on 24/03/1977. The land acquisition officer by his award dated 15/07/1978 awarded compenstion ranging from Rs. 1,320. 00 to Rs. 4,000. 00 per acre depending upon the nature of the land and the crop grown thereon. The District Judge on a reference under S. 18 of the Act enhanced the compensation to Rs. 85,000. 00 per acre regardless of categorisation. The High court by the judgment under appeals herein has remanded the matter for fresh disposal with liberty for both parties to adduce additional evidence. The High court has specifically observed that the District Judge should exclude Ex. A-4 and Ex. A-5 from consideration. Ex. A-4 and Ex. A-5 are the awards pertaining to acquisition of certain lands situated in Karimnagar. Thereunder, compensation at the rate of Rs. 85,000. 00 per acre under Ex. A-4 and Rs. 70,000. 00 under Ex. A-5 were given. The High court has observed that the lands concerned in those awards are not comparable lands.

( 3 ) HENCE these appeals.

( 4 ) THE first question that arises for consideration is whether Ex. A-5 should be altogether excluded or it should be kept open for being considered by the District Judge on merits. This is the specific question on which this court issued notice on the special leave petition. If first part of the question is answered in the negative, then the second question for consideration is whether the matter should go back to District Judge for fresh disposal.

( 5 ) WE heard counsel on both sides on the merits of the entire matter.

( 6 ) THE claimants have alleged that the lands acquired are fit for residential houses as they are adjacent to industrial estate, MARKFED factory, Vanaspathi complex, diary farm and Padmanagar colony. The lands have potentiality of being used as house sites and the like of which was sold for Rs. 5,000. 00 per gunta prior to the present acquisition. The lands are near to Karimnagar town. The town is developing into a modern town in Andhra Pradesh, with a lot of industrial, commercial, educational activities. They have claimed compensation at Rs. 1,60,000. 00 per acre for dry lands and a little more for wet lands.

( 7 ) THE evidence in support of their claim consists of the testimony of one of the claimants (Public Witness 1. He has given a rosy picture of the location and value of the lands. Another witness (Public Witness 2 has corroborated the version of Public Witness 1. Besides we have the evidence of a Commissioner. Mr G. Santosh Reddy advocate was appointed as Commissioner in this case. He has filed his report Ex. A-7 and Plan Ex. A-8.

( 8 ) THE High court appears to have brushed aside all that evidence. The High court compared the combined map of Karimnagar and Hasnapur village (Ex. A-3 with the sketch map (Ex. A-8 prepared by the Commissioner. The High court was of opinion that the lands concerned in Ex. A-5 are abutting Karimnagar town. They are close to MARKFED and other industrial institutions and buildings, but not the lands in question. The High court said : "whereas admittedly the lands in question are 3 kms from Karimnagar town". This statement has been seriously disputed before us. It is said that the claimants or their counsel did not admit, and indeed could not have made that admission suicidal to their case.

( 9 ) BE that as it may; the distance determined by the High court whether on admission or by comparison of village maps makes little difference. The distance from Karimnagar town should not be a ground to reject Ex. A-5. If the lands are suitable for house sites, Ex. A-5 would stil