SARELA, J. :- This appeal by one of the claimants relates to compensation in respect of two plots of land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act (Act I of 1894) (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The award by the Land Acquisition Officer for one of those plots namely final plot No. 9, was at the rate of Rs. 11 pet s. q. and for the other namely final plot No. 42 at Rs. 8 per s.q. On a reference to the District Court by the claimant who is the appellant here the Court raised the rate of compensation to Rs. 12/- and Rs. 9/- respectively in respect of final plots Nos. 9 and 42. Against that order this appeal is filed, it being the contention of the appellant that the compensation so awarded by the District Court was inadequate and requires to be enhanced.

* * * *

9. Now the best method of determination of the true market price of a plot of land is to base it on instances of sale of the same land or a portion of it at about the same time. The next best method is to look for other instances comparable in time and quality and it is on this method that Mr. Nanavati has placed reliance. Mr. Nanavati for the appellant concedes that instances relating to final plots Nos. 23 and 38 are not comparable in time for they are 3 to 4 years removed from the date of the notification. The notifications are of October and November of 1952 and the sale instances of these two plots are of June 1948 and December 1949. In the course of his argument, Mr. Nanavati did not therefore rely on those two sale instances but relied on the sale instance of final plot No. 24 which it will be noticed was first sold on 16-7-1949 at Rs. 27 per s. q. and then sold by the said purchaser to another on 9-2-1953 at Rs. 28.33 per s.y. Mr. Nanavati has relied on the latter sale which is approximate m time to the date of the notification. He argued that the instance of final plot No. 24 is a comparable instance in time. So far Mr. Nanavati is right. The question is whether that instance is a comparable instance also in quality.

10. Now, before considering whether the instance of final plot No. 24 is comparable in quality it is necessary to clear the ground on the question whether as an instance of sale it is a reliable instance. The details of that sale have been earlier mentioned. The sale took place on 9-2-1953. The plot has an area of 600 s. y. There was, as earlier noticed, a previous sale of this very plot on 16th July 1949 at Rs. 27/- per s. y. Two witnesses have been examined Witness Mohanlal Nathalal (Exh. 41) has been examined to prove the sale of 16-7-1949 and witness Bhailalbhai Tribbovandas (Exh. 36) to prove the sale of 9-2-1953. There is no suggestion in then cross-examination that the respective sales about which they deposed were not sales of willing vendors to willing purchasers. No doubt cross-examination has been directed to show that the purchasers needed these plots for the purpose of their business of timber Mohanlal admits this but denies that he paid anything more than the market price. Bhailabhai states, that he purchased the plot for the purpose of erecting a bungalow. No doubt he does not appear to have made any inquiries with the public registry or with the City Survey Office but the absence of these inquiries is explained by the fact that only four years before he purchased this plot there had teen a sale transaction of that plot and that would give him sufficient indication of the market value. The learned Advocate General, who appears on behalf of the Land Acquisition Officer, fairly concedes that having regard to these previous transactions in respect of the sale of this plot there is no inherent infirmity in the sale instance of this plot dated 9-2 1953. Under these circumstances the sale instance of final plot No. 24 is a reliable instance.

12. Is the sale instance of final plot No. 24 a comparable instance in respect of quality, is the next question. On this question