JUDGMENT Mitra Caspersz, J. - These are appeals from two awards of the Special Land Acquisition Judge of the 24-Pergunnahs under Act I of 1894 and the same claimant is the Appellant in both the appeals which relate to the amounts of compensation awarded to the Appellant. The principal question is what is the market value of each cottar of land in each of the plots covered by the proceedings. Appeal No. 264 of 1905 has reference to the southern plot measuring 15 cottahs, 10 chittaks and 22 square feet. Both the Collector and the Judge have valued it at Rs. 425 per cottah. The Appellant claims compensation at Rs. 738 per cottah. Appeal No. 285 relates to the northern plot measuring 4 cottahs, 5 chittaks, 6 square feet. The market value per cottah tendered by the Collector was Rs. 550, and the learned Judge has affirmed that valuation. The Appellant claims compensation at Rs. 801 per cottah. The cases of valuation of land acquired under Act I of 1894 for public purposes or the purposes of companies may be classified under three heads: (1) The opinion of valuators or experts, (2) the price paid within a reasonable time in bond fide transactions of purchase of the lands acquired or of the lands adjacent to the land acquired and possessing similar advantages; and (3) a number of years' purchase of the actual of immediately prospective profit from the lands acquired. 2. It is generally necessary to take two or all of these methods of valuation in order to arrive at a fairly correct valuation. Exact valuation is practically impossible, the approximate market value is all that can be aimed at. 3. Now, the ordinary rule of onus propend in these cases is that the claimant (who is a Plaintiff) must prove that the valuation made by the Collector is insufficient. The theory is that the Collector in arriving at his award performs administrative and quash judicial functions. He may take evidence and come to a conclusion on such evidence. The award under sec. 11 of the Act becomes final, if it is not challenged within a definite time before the tribunal of the Special Judge, and that Judge, therefore, fills the position to some extent of an Appellate Court. He may take evidence and come to a conclusion on such evidence. The award under sec. 11 of the Act becomes final, if it is not challenged within a definite time before the tribunal of the Special Judge, and that Judge, therefore, fills the position to some extent of an Appellate Court. The burden of proof is thus ordinarily on the claimant in the Court of the Special Judge, but the burden must vary according to the nature of the enquiry made by the Collector. If no evidence has been taken by the Collector, and if no reasons have been given in his decision to support his conclusion, the claimant has a very light burden to discharge. The mere ipse dixit of a Collector has very little weight, and is not prima facie evidence of the correctness of his award. Instances are not uncommon where the Collector has not given the grounds on which the amount of compensation was determined by him, and the legal result of his failure to comply with the provisions of sec. 19 (1) (d) of the Act is to make it incumbent on the Collector to justify before the Special Judge, an award which is a mere brutum fulmen. 4. The claimant has examined Natai-Govind Chowdhuri, a Civil Engineer, a B. C. E. of the Calcutta University and a valuator. He has valued the northern plot at Rs. 800 per cottah and the southern plot at Rs. 738. These estimates are, undoubtedly, some evidence, but their value is not great, as expert opinion is liable to err and it is not safe to place much reliance on this kind of evidence unless it is supported by, or coincides with, other evidence. 5. The claimant has given two instances of sales of neighboring lands on the 19th May 1885, the Muncipal Corporation of Calcutta for whom also the lands in controversy, have been acquired realize by sale Rs. 2,100 per cottah. On the 5th December 1898 there was a contract for the sale of the identical piece of land at Rs. 2,500 per cottah. A suit for specific performance of the contract followed at the instance of the purchaser, and on 19th January 1904 the Registrar of this Court executed in favour of the purchaser, under an order of this Court, a deed of conveyance at Rs. 2,500 per cottah. 2,500 per cottah. A suit for specific performance of the contract followed at the instance of the purchaser, and on 19th January 1904 the Registrar of this Court executed in favour of the purchaser, under an order of this Court, a deed of conveyance at Rs. 2,500 per cottah. On the 22nd April 1904 the same plot was Bold for Rs. 5/000 per cottah. This was, however, after the declaration which is dated the 30th May 1903. For the purpose of these cases, therefore, we must take the first two sales into consideration, the rates being Rs. 2,100 and 2,600 per cottah. The land covered by these sales though at a distance of 50 yds. from the plot under acquisition, was, and still is, very advantageously situated, being on the Lower Circular Road, and due allowance must be made for such advantageous situation. 6. The second instance of sale also relates to a piece of land at a similar distance. It was sold on the 20th August 1885 at Rs. 2,800 per cottah. This land, however, has advantages which the acquired lands do not possess, viz., a road frontage and proximity to a market. Due allowance must be made for its advantageous situation. 7. The Collector has given instances of sale of neighboring lands at Rs. 256, Rs. 353 and Rs. 530 per cottah. The last instance is of a date subsequent to the declaration. The effect of the first two sales is minimized by apparent defect of title, and the title conveyed has an important bearing on the price paid. 8. The safest guide in these valuation cases with reference to instances of sales of lands in the locality must be held to be the sales at Rs. 2,500 and Rs. 2,800, but deductions should be made on account of the situation and other advantages of these highly priced lands, and regard should be paid to the situation of the acquired lands relatively to the Lower Circular Road and the other lands of the claimant. After giving these matters our best consideration, our conclusion is that Rs. 650 and Rs. 550 per cottah should be allowed as the market prices of lands on the north and south respectively. 9 our decision is strengthened by a consideration of the rentals and disposition of the two pieces of the land at the date of the declaration. After giving these matters our best consideration, our conclusion is that Rs. 650 and Rs. 550 per cottah should be allowed as the market prices of lands on the north and south respectively. 9 our decision is strengthened by a consideration of the rentals and disposition of the two pieces of the land at the date of the declaration. Sec. 557 of the Calcutta Municipal Act precludes any valuation based on the most advantageous disposition of land, e.g. a valuation of bus tee land on the supposition of its adaptability for use as building land to carry expensive structures, which is the most advantageous use to which land can be put in Calcutta. The Act, however, contemplates 25 years' purchase on rental or annual valuation as made by the Corporation. The two rules must go together, because it is well known that even bus tee lands in ordinary sales are priced per cottah in the town of Calcutta, and the rental from huts is generally low in comparison with the price paid per cottah. Twenty years' purchase is not usually a fair basis of calculation on bus tee rent. Now, the learned Special Judge has shown from calculations which appear to be accurate that the rental per cottah of the land adjoining the northern strip would yield Rs. 600 at 20 years' purchase without deduction for taxes. Calculating at 25 years' purchase, the result will be practically the same as we have arrived at from instances of actual sales. As regards the southern strip of the acquired land a further deduction should be made for the reason that the total area is larger, and the larger the area the smaller is the demand and consequently the market value. We therefore direct that the valuation be made at Rs. 650 and Rs. 550 per cottah respectively. 9. We observe that the plot of 4 cottas, 5 chatters and 6 square feet on the north, has been carved out of the middle of a larger plot. The result is that the plot on the east thus severed from the plot on the west is now without a proper road frontage or a good passage for exit. 9. We observe that the plot of 4 cottas, 5 chatters and 6 square feet on the north, has been carved out of the middle of a larger plot. The result is that the plot on the east thus severed from the plot on the west is now without a proper road frontage or a good passage for exit. The Municipal Corporation may or may not allow the residents of the eastern plot to use the roads and ways in connection with the incinerator for which the plots of land in controversy have been acquired, or the roads appertaining to the railway lines. They are not pathways or thoroughfares. The residents may be effectually barred from passing through the proprietor's other lands to the Lower Circular Road, and the passage to the Heritable Road on the north must also be regarded as precarious. For the severance and injurious affection contemplated by sec. 23, cls. (3) and (4), which may be considered together, we are disposed to allow damages at Rs. 100 per cottah for the area (six cottas) of the land in the plot on the east which has been severed by the acquisition. The amount should be calculated when the decree is prepared and added to the total amount of compensation. 10. The last contention raised before us relates to the site of the road on the east of the southern plot. The Municipal Corporation claims the road-site and pleads that it has vested in it under the Act; the Appellant claims it as his land and the road a bus tee road for his tenants only and constructed on his own land by himself. This may or may not be the case. Both the Collector and the Special Judge under Act I of 1894 have limited jurisdiction. They are bound by the official declaration in the local Gazette. The Collector cannot acquire or give possession of any land beyond the boundaries given in the declaration. If he does so, he commits an act of trespass. He has to find out the precise quantity of land notified for acquisition within specified boundaries, value the same under the provisions of the Act, and give possession accordingly. The Special Judge has to make similar enquiries. If the Local Government committed a mistake by giving an erroneous boundary, the Judge or Collector cannot cure the mistake. He has to find out the precise quantity of land notified for acquisition within specified boundaries, value the same under the provisions of the Act, and give possession accordingly. The Special Judge has to make similar enquiries. If the Local Government committed a mistake by giving an erroneous boundary, the Judge or Collector cannot cure the mistake. If the land acquired be for Government purposes and if the Government takes possession of land beyond the limits prescribed by the declaration or in excess of the area for which compensation is paid, it trespasses on private land and is liable under the law of the country. So is a company, if the acquisition be for its purposes. 11. Now, it is clear from the declaration of the 30th May 1903, that the road-site was excluded. We cannot value it and direct compensation to be granted for it. The claimant may have other remedies. 12. Let decrees be drawn in accordance with the directions given in this judgment. The amounts of compensation will carry the statutory allowance of 15 per cent, and the interest as prescribed by the Act. Costs in this Court as well as in the lower Court will be in proportion to the success or failure of the respective parties.