R.N. Prasad, J.

This appeal by the erstwhile owner of the land acquired in Land Acquisition Case No. 50/40 of 1971 against the decision of the court passed in a reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, (hereinafter to be referred as the Act.)

2. It appears that a notification under section 4 of the Act, was issued on 20.11.1957 for the acquisition of 38.4 Acre of land situated in village Shahpur Undi, within Dalsingh Sarai police station of the present district of Samastipur. The land which comprises of different plots as per details given in the notice, but is in a compact block having trees thereon. This land, admittedly belonged to the appellant. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed the value of the land including trees @ Rs. 2200/- per acre. The appellant thereafter sought a reference under section 18 of the Act, and the matter was referred to the Ist Addl. Subordinate Judge of Samastipur, who was appointed as Special Land Acquisition Judge. Eventually, the Special Land Acquisition Judge fixed the value of the land including the trees @ Rs. 3000/- per acre. The appellant, being unsatisfied with the value determined by the learned Special Land Acquisition Judge, has come up in appeal to this Court. According to him the value of the land on the relevant date i.e. on 20.11.1957 should be Rs. 200/- to Rs. 250/- per katha.

3. The appellant had examined a number of witnesses and had produced a number of sale deeds in support of his claim for higher valuation. The respondent had also produced three sale deeds. The learned Special Land Acquisition Judge, on a consideration of all aspects of the matter, fixed the value of the land at Rs. 3000/- per acre after striking a balance between the rival claims put forward by the parties. In doing so, it appears that he took into account the value given in the three sale deeds (Ext. J, J/1 and J/2) which were relied upon by the respondent. The learned Judge did not feel inclined to fix the value of the land in accordance with the value given in the sale deeds fled on behalf of the appellant. He also rejected the oral evidence given by the witness examined by the appellant on the question of valuation.

4. So far the oral evidence adduced by the appellant is concerned, it appears that the learned Judge has considered the evidence of all the witnesses examined on the point of valuation and has given good reasons for not acting on their evidence. In my opinion, the reasons given by the learned Judge for not acting on their evidence is quite reasonable and acceptable. Indeed, it would be mere repetition to discuss them here once again.

5. It is, however, necessary to discuss the documents produced by the appellant as such reliance has been placed by his learned counsel on these documents. These documents are seven sale deeds (Ext 1 series), certified copy of the decision of the band Acquisition Judge (Ext. 5) raising the award in land acquisition case no. 60/1956-57. The learned Government Pleader has taken much pain in locating the lands covered by these sale deeds in the survey map and has contended that these sale deeds cannot be of any help in determining the market value of the land acquired.

6. Out of these sale deeds, Exts. 1/A/1/B 1C and 1/I have to be ignored as it was pointed out that they relate to lands situate in villages other than Shahpur Undi in which village the land acquired in situate. Not only that, the valuation given in Ext. 1/A cannot afford a good guideline for determining the valuation in the present case as it is adjacent to the road and it is well known that the value of the land abutting the road is higher than the lands which are away from the road. It may be stated here that only a small portion of the acquired land is adjacent to the road and the bulk of it is away from the road. Moreover, only 14 hours of land has been sold through this sale deed. The experience shows that generally high price is offered for a small parcel of land and such price can