The court cannot re-appreciate evidence and come to its own conclusion in a writ petition challenging an award passed by a Land Acquisition Collector. It has to consider whether the conclusion reached by the Collector was warranted and justifiable on the evidence placed before it and whether settled legal principles of law in determining compensation were taken into consideration.

M. Srinivasan, C. J.—The petitioner Company is aggrieved by the award passed by the Land Acquisition Collector (Industries) District Bilaspur on 29-4-1996. In short, the complaint of the petitioner Company is that the compensation fixed by the award is arbitrary and excessive and the award has failed to fake into consideration all the relevant materials. It is also stated by the petitioner that the price has been fixed on imaginary basis, The further contention of the petitioner is that it had no notice whatever at the stage when the evidence was recorded by the Land Acquisition Collector for fixing the price of the land.

2. None of the contentions of the petitioner is sustainable in view of the materials placed before us. We find from the records that the petitioner has had not only notice of the proceedings but also produced evidence before the Land Acquisition Collector. Even in the petition in Para 2, it is admitted as follows : "The petitioner company.......also led evidence in the shape of mutations, sale deeds for fixation of price in respect of land proposed to be acquired for the company Copies of the representations dated 3-4-1995 and 6th of April 1995 by which the petitioner company had placed on record relevant material and evidence of exempler transactions to show the market price of the land is attached as Annexares P-4 and P-5.. ..." The Land Acquisition Collector has considered those documents in his order dated 27-4.-1995 which preceded the award. The relevant portion of the said order reads thus : "On the other hand, the acquiring Company A. C. C. represented on 3 4-1995 and 6-4 1995 vide letter No. GL/BRD/LAND/1616 and 2400 respectively relying upon transaction made through mutation Nos 173, 180, 182 to 187, 189 and 190, All these transactions pertain to the period 7-8-1989 and 27-3-1991 in respect of village Baloh. They have also relied upon the judgments of Honble Supreme Court, AIR S984 SC 893 (Para 13) ; AIR 1988 SC 943 ; AIR 1982 HP 71 ; AIR 1977 SC 380 ; AIR 1994 NOC 385 (AP) All these citations go to show that smaller transaction cannot be made basis for the determination of market value of a large area as also mere production of revenue mutations of adjacent land for that purpose is insufficient—actual sale price and circumstances of sale must be proved by claimants Honble High Court of H. P. in case State of H. P. v. Daulat Ram Attari, cited as AIR 1981 HP 71 (Para 15), have held— burden of proof—claimants are in position of plaintiff—onus of proving that transaction i. e sale deed in respect of land in locality, is genuine and bona fide on them."

3. Only after considering those transactions, the Land Acquisition Collector held that the documents relied upon by the petitioner Company were not relevant in respect of fixing the market value on the relevant date. He proceeded to consider various other documents produced by the claimants and pointed out that even those documents were not of much use He placed reliance upon his own personal inspection and documents of transactions of other adjoining villages, i e Harkhar. Ultimately, he was of the opinion that the rate of Rs. 7,000 per Biswa for cultivated and Abaidi and Rs 5,000 per Biswa for uncultivated land should be reasonable. That order was placed before the official of the State Government and it was approved by the official and thereafter the Land Acquisition Collector passed the award on 29-4-1996, It is pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the award actually passed by the Land Acquisition Collector does not make any reference therein to the documents produced by the petitioner or any other person We are of the view that it was not material in view of the fact that the award passed is based upon the reasons contained in the proceedings dated 27-4-1995 to which we have already made a reference. Merely because while passing the award, the Collector does not make a reference to the evidence produced by the petitioner, t