M. Srinivasan, CJ. (Oral): The earlier appeal is by the claimants while the latter is by the State Government. The Notification under section 4(1) was issued on 10.2.1983. The declaration under section 6 was made on 15.9 1983 The Land Acquisition Officer passed the Award on 27.3.1984. fixing the market! value @ Rs.45.25 per square meter for the lands. He awarded a compensation of Rs.4986.25 for fruit bearing tress and Rs.273/- for non-fruit tearing trees. The matter was referred to the District Judge under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The District Judge passed his award on 9.9.1986, enhancing the compensation to Rs.70/- per square meter for the lands. As regards the compensation for the trees, he affirmed the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer

2. The total extent acquired under the Notification was 14,125 square meters we are concerned in these two appeals with 3576 square meters of land. The claimants made a claim of Rs.4 lacs per bigha, that is, at the rate of Rs.500/- per square meter before the Land Acquisition Officer and also claimed Rs.8 lacs by way of compensation for the trees. In these appeals the claimants have claimed at the rate of Rs. 170/- per square meter and a sum of Rs.48,400/-for trees. The contention of the State Government is that the claimants are not entitled to get anything more than what was awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer and the Award passed by the District Judge is unsustainable

3. The claimants have examined as many as 18 witnesses and filed certain documents which are sale deeds pertaining to certain lands situate within the municipal area of Sndernagar and also two agreements for sale Strong reliance is placed on the two agreements for sale marked as Ex. PW 12A and Ex.PWl 3/A. With reference to Ex PW12/A, it is found that the agreement is dated 24-5-1981. The stamp paper on which the agreement is written bears the date 25-5-1981. There is no explanation as to how the stamp paper purchased on a later date could have been use for an agreement, said to have been executed, on an earlier date Learned counsel for the appellants attempt lo give explanation that it was t clerical error on the part of the persons, who entered into the agreement to mention the date .24.5 1981. As there is no evidence in support of this argument, we are unable to accept the same. Hence the District Judge is right in rejecting that document.

4. As regards other agreement Ex.PW-13/A, though the time limit fixed in the agreement for completion of transaction was only three months, there was no attempt by any of the parties to complete the sale inspite of the fact that almost two years had elapsed from the date of the agreement before the acquisition. Hence the District Judge was right in rejecting Ex.PW I3/Aalso, as unacceptable in them alter of proof of market value of the land.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants placed reliance on certain documents which have not been referred to by of the witnesses examined on this case. Hence those documents cannot be looked into by the Court. It has been laid down by the Supreme Court in P. Ram Reddy & drs. v. Land Acquisition Officer & ors., (1995) 2 SCC 305 and Major Pakhar Singh Atwal & ors. v. Slate of Punjab & ors.. (1995 Supp (2) SCC 401 that in the absence of any of the parties to the transaction giving evidence before the Court, the sale deeds by themselves cannot be treated as evidence and the claimants are not entitled to place any reliance thereon.

6. Learned counsel has invited our attention to four documents which, according to him, have been spoken to by the witnesses. Ex.PF is one such en:. It is a sale deed dated 21.11.1983 with respect to an extent of 89 meters of land. The, rate works out to Rs.250/- per square meters. PW-4 the purchaser under that document. He has given evidence with respect to document. PW-4 has stated in his cross-examination that he purchased the in question as he was in need of purchasing it and he paid the price a