Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J.—I have already heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned counsel for the State of Bihar.

2. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 21.12.1988, passed by the Subordinate Judge-II-cum-Land Acquisition Judge, Muzaffarpur in Land Acquisition Case No. 65 of 1975.

3. The brief facts of the case are that five acres of land of the appellant was acquired, vide notification dated 15.02.1966 under the provision of Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’). The purpose for acquisition was for the construction of Erri Seeds Supply Station in village Mohammadpur Gokul, P.S.-Sakra, Distrcit- Muzaffarpur.

4. On behalf of the appellant, an objection under Section 5A of ‘the Act’ was filed which was rejected and thereafter the declaration under Section 6 of ‘the Act’ was issued on 11.11.1966 as it was for public purpose. Ext.-I is the notification under Section 4(1) of ‘the Act’ and Ext.-J is the notification under Section 6 of ‘the Act. The Additional Land Acquisition Officer, Muzaffarpur submitted his report to the Additional Collector and it was forwarded to the government for further action. In the said report, the claim made on behalf of the appellant was also recorded. As per the objection of the appellant, the property fell in the share of the appellant after partition. It was “the cream plot of land” and the appellant was in cultivatory possession of the land, where the agricultural works in mechanized way were performed. The alternative land was suggested by the appellant through the second objection petition dated 27.07.1966. Both the applications were rejected by the Additional Collector.

5. The main grievance of the appellant is inadequate compensation awarded to him by the State Government. He claimed the value of the land not less than Rs.22,250/- per acre, which is equivalent to Rs. 1000/- per katha. The objection petition dated 18.11.1969 is marked as Ext.2

6. The grievance of the appellant is that there was no examplar sale deed for four years prior to the notification and only one sale deed was available after the notification which is Ext.1 dated 27.01.1967, executed by Budhu Thakur in favour of Munshi Mian, Muhammad Hussain and Mohammad Suleman which relates to the same village Mohammadpur Gokul and the land was purchased for Rs. 1,000/- per katha (Rs.22,900/- per acre). The second examplar sale deed is Ext.1/A, which is a certified copy of the sale deed dated 13.01.1966, executed by Raghuraj Singh in favour of Pahari Mahto. It has been submitted that as per the sale deed the consideration money was Rs.540.55/- per katha (Rs.12,378/- per acre). The learned court below ignoring these two examplar sale deeds conceded with the award submitted by the Collector at the rate of Rs.231.50 per katha (Rs.4697/- per acre) which is a meagre amount, according to the appellant.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that, while calculating the compensation, the learned authorities had taken into account the sale statement of another village Dharmangatpur (Ext.C) and only on the basis of sale statement of another village, even without examining the vendor or vendee, the compensation on the basis of sale statement was ascertained and the learned court below has also committed illegality in relying upon the sale statement (Ext.C) for calculation of the land in question. It has been submitted further that as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector Raigarh vs. Harisingh Thakur and others reported (MANU/SC/0331/197), the sale statement without examining the vendors or vendees cannot be taken into account for computation/calculation of the compensation. Para-6 of the said judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:—

“6. It is also not disputed that the Special Land Acquisition Officer did not lead any evidence worth the name to show the price of the comparable sites in question and remained content with the pr