( 1 ) THE question that arises in this appeal concerns the enhancement of compensation in respect of 4165 sq. mtrs. of land in survey No. 404 bearing Final Plot No. 347 of Town Planning Scheme No. 22 of village Vasna. The acquisition is for the Telephone Exchange Building. Notification under S. 4 Land Acquisition Act, D/-10-11-1970 was published in Government Gazette on 3-12-1970. The two documents available for the purpose of estimating the value of the acquired land are Ex. 47 D/-18-10-1969 and Ex. 48 D/-24-10-1969. These are plots comprised in survey No. 407. The learned Judge has noticed that the documents relating to these lands shows the land value of Rs. 37. 44 per sq. metre in one case and Rs. 34. 97 per sq. metre in the other case. Even so the Court has adopted Rs. 30/- per sq. metre for the acquired land only for the reason that the acquired land was of much larger area than the land acquired under Exs. 47 and 48. The extent of the area is not the real test. The mere important test is the location of the lands. It is seen from the map Ex. 24 that the land comprised in Final Plot No. 347 is definitely superior in all respects to the land comprised in Final Plot No. 360. The two documents relate to those parts of the Final Plot. Final Plot No. 347 is situated on the right side of the 100 wide Sarkhej Road which is a very important road in the Ahmedabad city. The two plots which are the subject matter of Exs. 47 and 48 are plots far inside with no road frontage and they certainly can never have any value near about that of the acquired plot. The fact that the plot is more than an acre need not reduce the value of the plot as in important areas in cities it is difficult to get such extent of land and many people may be on the look-out for such large extent. Therefore, the comparison of extent is not of so much relevance in this case. In these circumstances, Rs. 30/awarded by the Reference Court is found quite inadequate and Rs. 10/- asked for as an addition is found quite a moderate claim. Though the appellant contended that since the total claim in the appeal is Rs. 55,000/- though made under different heads, even if only Rs. 10/- more has been prayed for in the appeal memorandum, more than that could be granted. When the appellants claim is only for an additional rate of Rs. 10/- per sq. metre, we do not think that anything more is to be awarded. Hence the claim allowed is limited to Rs. 10/- more per sq. metre.

( 2 ) THERE is some controversy as to the extent of the area, the claimant contending it to be 4565 sq. metres and the State contending that it is only 4165 sq. metres. The controversy is in respect of 400 sq. metres. If any additional extent is taken without authority, it is for the appellant to seek appropriate steps then. The question does not arise in this reference.

( 3 ) THAT there are constructions in the acquired site is evident. This is spoken to by the claimant. The learned Judge of the Court below has also chosen to accept that case. It has been found that there were constructions at the time of acquisition, but on the ground that it was not certain whether these constructions were prior or after S. 4 notification, its value was not awarded. There was no occasion for such a doubt. In the absence of a case by the State that the structures have been constructed after the acquisition, the learned Judge ought not to have posed that question at all. As for the value of the said constructions, the oral evidence of the claimant cannot be relied on as it is naturally bound to be exaggerated. The learned Judge has, based on the measurements shown by the claimant himself, determined the cubic contents of the construction and valued it appropriately, a valuation with which we see no reason to disagree. Hence Rs. 3,000/-found as the value of the construction must be awarded.

( 4 ) THERE is another item and that concerns the claim of Rs. 1,000/- for six trees. The case is that at the time of tak