( 1 ) I have perused the judgment prepared by my learned brother and I agree with his conclusion of fact. But, in regard to the question of the admissibility of the Judgments of the High Court filed along with C. M. P. No. 2723 of 1957 and marked as additional evidence by this Court, I am inclineds take a different view.

( 2 ) UNDER Section 23 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, the Court has to determine the market value of the land as on the date of the publication of the notification under Section 4 Sub-section (1 ). Dealing with this expression "the market value". Lord Romer observed in the well-known Lova Garden Case, Narayana, Gajapatiraju v. Revenue Divisional Officer Vizagapatam, ILR 1939 Mad 532 at p. 543: (AIR 1939 PC 98 at p. 102} (A), as follows: "there is not in general any market for land is the sense in which one speaks of a market for shares or a market for sugar or any like commodity. The value of any such article at any particular time can readily be ascertained by the prices being obtained for similar articles in the market. In the case of land, its value in general can also be measured by a consideration of the prices that have been obtained in the past for land or similar quality and in similar positions, and this is what must be meant in general by the market value in Section 23. " There is no doubt that sale deeds of neighbouring lands of similar quality are relevant and admissible in evidence for determining the value of the land sought to be acquired. The question as to how far the judgments relating to the acquisition of neighbouring lands is admissible in evidence came up for decision in Secy. of State for India v. India General Steam Navigation and Ry. Co. Ltd. , 36 ILR (CAL) 967 (PC) (B ). It appears from page 970 that the claimant relied upon two judgments of the High Court dated 13/08/1903 and 1 8/08/1903, for awarding compensation. The learned Judges of the High Court of Calcutta, Mr. Justice Rampini and Mr. Justice Ashutosh Mookerjee, adopted the rates given by the learned Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Geidt for the lands acquired al the corner of the Watganj and Garden Reach Roads. The relevant observations at page 971 are as follows: "but basins our valuation on the evidence given in this case on both sides and taking into consideration such evidence, as to rates of rent, sales and awards, we are inclined to value the land at very much the rates given by the learned Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Geidt for the land taken up at the corner of the Watganj and Garden Reach Roads. This land is very near, if it is not the nearest land, to the subject of this reference, of the value of which we have evidence. This land is no doubt to the north of the docks and nearer Calcutta than the lands now the subject of enquiry: but on the other hand Nos. 6, 7 and 8, Garden Reach, have greater advantages in the way of river frontage. The learned Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Geidt gave Rs. 950. 00 per cottah to the front and Rs. 550. 00 per cottah for the back land, i. e. , Rs 750/- per cottah on an average. We consider we should give this average rate for the firm land of the premises Nos. 6, 7 and 8, Garden Reach irrespectively of its situation. . . . . . " It is clear from these observations that the High Court of Calcutta awarded compensation on the basis of the earlier judgment of the High Court dated 1 3/08/1903. On appeal before the Judicial Committee, the counsel for the appellant contended that the High Court proceeded on an erroneous principle in adopting as the basis of valuation of the land the value put in previous land acquisition proceedings between different parties, in connection with an entirely different plot of land, and irrespective of and without regard to essential elements of dissimilarity in regard to area, locality and special and peculiar advantages. They argued further that the judgment in the previous case relied upon by the High Court was not evidence in the present case of the value

Click Here to Read the rest of this document