Post-notification transactions may be relevant in determining the market value of the land, and the award of the Land Acquisition Collector is binding on the Government.

( 1 ) THESE are three appeals from the order of the Additional District Judge dated December 6, 1961. Two appeals are by the owners (R. F. A. 64-D and 71-D of 1962) and one appeal is by the taker of the land. Union of India, against the land owners (R. F. A. 160-D of 1962 ). In these appeals the question relates to the amount of compensation payable to the owners of certain land situated in village Jia Sarai. The common question that arises in all the three appeals is : What was the value of the acquired land on January 10, 1959?

( 2 ) THE owners land situated in Jia Sarai was acquired by the Government for a public purpose, namely, building of the College of Engineering and Technology. Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (the Act) was issued on January 10, 1959. Simultaneously a declaration under Section 6 was made because of the urgent nature of the acquisition.

( 3 ) IN due course the Land Acquisition Collector made the award (Award No. 944 ). He offered compensation to the owners as under :the owners were dissatisfied with the collector s valuation. On that ground they demanded that the matter should be referred to the court under S. 18 of the Act. On reference the Additional District Judge enhanced the compensation. He abolished the distinction of Ghahi, Rosali, Sailab and Banjar Qadim. He made the award at the uniform rate of Rs. 2250. 00 per bigha. For Ghair Murnkin and, however, he awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 500. 00 per bigha. From his decision the owners appeal to this court for further enhancement. The Union of India, on the other hand, in their appeal contend that the award of the Additional District Judge is excessive and unjustified and ought to be reduced.

( 4 ) BEFORE the court two sale transactions were tendered in evidence. One was a sale of June 3, 1959. 15 biswas of land in this village Jia Sarai was sold by Ghajju to Kailash Chand for Rs. 3000. 00. The price works out to Rs. 4000. 00 per bigha. The other was also a sale of 3rd June, 1959. 14 biswas of land was purchased by Umrao from Chhajju for Rs. 3000. 00. The price works out to a little more than Rs. 4000. 00 per bigha. About the situation of the land the learned judge came to the conclusion that the land had great potential value as a building site, surrounded as it was by colonies on three sides, namely, Hauz Khas Enclave, Green Park and Government Quarters. He found that the land was fit for building purposes. In fact, the collector himself had stated so in the award. Regarding the sale instances of 3rd June, 1959 the learned judge formed the view that these transactions could not be ignored altogether from consideration. For this view he relied on Assistant Development Officer, Trombay v. Tayaballi Allibhoy Bohori, A. I. R. 1933 Bombay 361.

( 5 ) A transaction of sale of 1954 was also produced in evidence before the judge. On November 14, 1954 land was sold at the rate of Rs. 2250. 00 per bigha. This transaction appears to have influenced the judge s decision. It seems that he did not attach much importance to the sales of 3rd June, 1959, though in principle he conceded that they could not be ignored altogether from consideration. He said that "the price paid fur under those sale deeds are higher for the reason that those plots were small ones and near Hauz Kha. s Enclave, while the land in dispute is a very large area. " The learned judge therefore determined the value of land other than ghair murnkin at Rs. 2250. 00 per bigha. Of ghair murnkin he fixed the value at Rs. 500. 00 per bigha.

( 6 ) IT appears to me that the sale transactions of 3rd June, 1959, though they were held to be relevant, were given no weight in the process of evaluation. The learned judge fixed the price for January 1959 that which prevailed in 1954. He premised the assessment on the fact that the purchase price in 1959 was the same as in 1954. As if nothing had happened during these five years. This conclusion cannot b