JUDGMENT

Mitra Caspersz, J. - These are appeals from two awards of the Special Land Acquisition Judge of the 24-Pergunnahs under Act I of 1894 and the same claimant is the Appellant in both the appeals which relate to the amounts of compensation awarded to the Appellant. The principal question is what is the market value of each cottar of land in each of the plots covered by the proceedings. Appeal No. 264 of 1905 has reference to the southern plot measuring 15 cottahs, 10 chittaks and 22 square feet. Both the Collector and the Judge have valued it at Rs. 425 per cottah. The Appellant claims compensation at Rs. 738 per cottah. Appeal No. 285 relates to the northern plot measuring 4 cottahs, 5 chittaks, 6 square feet. The market value per cottah tendered by the Collector was Rs. 550, and the learned Judge has affirmed that valuation. The Appellant claims compensation at Rs. 801 per cottah. The cases of valuation of land acquired under Act I of 1894 for public purposes or the purposes of companies may be classified under three heads:

(1) The opinion of valuators or experts, (2) the price paid within a reasonable time in bond fide transactions of purchase of the lands acquired or of the lands adjacent to the land acquired and possessing similar advantages; and (3) a number of years' purchase of the actual of immediately prospective profit from the lands acquired.

2. It is generally necessary to take two or all of these methods of valuation in order to arrive at a fairly correct valuation. Exact valuation is practically impossible, the approximate market value is all that can be aimed at.

3. Now, the ordinary rule of onus propend in these cases is that the claimant (who is a Plaintiff) must prove that the valuation made by the Collector is insufficient. The theory is that the Collector in arriving at his award performs administrative and quash judicial functions. He may take evidence and come to a conclusion on such evidence. The award under sec. 11 of the Act becomes final, if it is not challenged within a definite time before the tribunal of the Special Judge, and that Judge, therefore, fills the position to some extent of an Appellate Court. The burden of proof is thus ordinarily on the claimant in the Court of the Special Judge, but the burden must vary according to the nature of the enquiry made by the Collector. If no evidence has been taken by the Collector, and if no reasons have been given in his decision to support his conclusion, the claimant has a very light burden to discharge. The mere ipse dixit of a Collector has very little weight, and is not prima facie evidence of the correctness of his award. Instances are not uncommon where the Collector has not given the grounds on which the amount of compensation was determined by him, and the legal result of his failure to comply with the provisions of sec. 19 (1) (d) of the Act is to make it incumbent on the Collector to justify before the Special Judge, an award which is a mere brutum fulmen.

4. The claimant has examined Natai-Govind Chowdhuri, a Civil Engineer, a B. C. E. of the Calcutta University and a valuator. He has valued the northern plot at Rs. 800 per cottah and the southern plot at Rs. 738. These estimates are, undoubtedly, some evidence, but their value is not great, as expert opinion is liable to err and it is not safe to place much reliance on this kind of evidence unless it is supported by, or coincides with, other evidence.

5. The claimant has given two instances of sales of neighboring lands on the 19th May 1885, the Muncipal Corporation of Calcutta for whom also the lands in controversy, have been acquired realize by sale Rs. 2,100 per cottah. On the 5th December 1898 there was a contract for the sale of the identical piece of land at Rs. 2,500 per cottah. A suit for specific performance of the contract followed at the instance of the purchaser, and on 19th January 1904 the Registrar of this Court executed in favour of the purchaser, under an order of this Co