The claimant is not restricted to the different valuations for the different items in his petition of reference, although he might be held limited to the amount claimed for the entire property in the said petition.

( 1 ) THESE two appeals arise out of a Land Acquisition proceeding. The property under acquisition was, premises No. 26 Dixon Lane, which comprised an area of 11 cottahs with a three-storied building thereon. The Land Acquisition Collector awarded compensation at the average rate of Rs. 9,400 per cottah for the land and Rupees 1,39,000 for the structures.

( 2 ) IN addition to the above, he also awarded a sum of Rs. 2,000 on account of costs of removal and the usual statutory allowance. and his total award came up to Rs. 2,80,760.

( 3 ) THE claimant was dissatisfied with the Collector's award and took a reference before the Land Acquisition Judge. In the petition of reference the claim appears to have been made for a minimum amount of Rs. 2,82,000 for the entire property, the claim for the land being valued at least at Rs. 12,000 per cottah, and, for the structures, the claim was Rs. 1,60,000.

( 4 ) THE learned Land Acquisition Judge has enhanced the award by fixing the compensation including statutory allowance at Rupees 3,24,300 in place of the Collector's award of Rs. 2,80,760, the enhanced award thus coming up to Rs. 43,640.

( 5 ) THE claimant was still dissatisfied, and he preferred F. A. No. 132 of 1966 to this Court against the said award. The State also felt aggrieved by the enhancement over the Collector's award and filed a cross-appeal, F. A. No. 133 of 1966. Both these appeals are now before us for decision.

( 6 ) ON the question of land valuation, the learned Land Acquisition Judge has accepted the rate of Rs. 10,500 per cottah on a consideration of the various circumstances and the materials before him. And, for the structures, his assessment was a value of Rupees 1,87,495 although in his view, having regard to the claim, made by the claimant in his petition of reference, from which he deduced the total figure of Rs. 2,82,000, a sum of Rs. 1,66,600 was allowed for the said structures.

( 7 ) BOTH the above assessments for land as well as building or structure have been assailed before us by the learned Additional Government Pleader, and on behalf of the claimant, those figures were sought to be further enhanced.

( 8 ) THE evidence, so far as land value is concerned really turns on two Exhibits, Exts. 8 and 3a, Ext. 3 relating to neighbour- ing premises. No. 1/2 Gomesh Lane and Ext. 3a to another neighbouring premises No. 16, Dixon Lane. These two documents are respectively dated 17th May, 1952 and 16th August, 1962.

( 9 ) IT has been urged by the Additional Government Pleader that the relevant date of valuation for the purpose of the instant acquisition was September, 1961, and accordingly, the above two documents would not be relevant, as they would be of the year 1962, about nine years prior to the said relevant date. It appears, however, that no other material of any comparable value is available, and accordingly, the learned Land Acquisition Judge has relied on the above two Exhibits, 3 and 3a, after necessary adjustments in the light of the evidence on record.

( 10 ) IN our view, in the circumstances of this case, the learned Land Acquisition Judge has taken the correct view on the question of value of land, as derived from the said documents. As regards structures, the evidence of valuation is practically one sided, and the evidence of the claimant's expert in this behalf, as analysed by the learned Land Acquisition Judge, seems to be acceptable in the circumstances of this case.

( 11 ) A point was raised on behalf of the State that there were two other documents on record, Exts. B and C, which related to the property under acquisition and were good evidence of valuation of the same nearabout the relevant time. These exhibits, however, as has been observed by the learned Land Acquisition Judge, would not afford any reliable index of the valuation of the disputed property for reasons, given by the learned Judge, and indeed, they were not relied upon by the Land Acquisition Collect