N. M. MIABHOY, J. ( 1 ) THESE are two cross appeals from the judgment and order dated 19th December 1957 delivered and passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Nadiad in Compensation Case No. 21 of 1956 Appeal No. 157 of 1960 is by the District Deputy Collector Anand who acted as the Land Acquisition Officer in the proceedings. Appeal No. 167 of 1960 is by the claimant Patel Punjabhai Mathurbhai. The land under acquisition is survey No. 1496/a situated within the limits of the township of Anand. The land measures I acre and 30 gunthas. There is no dispute that in 1949 this land was requisitioned by the Government for the State Transport Corporation to enable them to establish a workshop and a garage there and that in fact a workshop and a garage were constructed there and were in existence at the date of the notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. That notification was issued on 21 February 1952. The claimant Punjabhai claimed compensation under two heads before the Land Acquisition officer. He claimed compensation for the land at the rate of Rs. 3 0 per guntha and for the superstructures he claimed a compensation of Rs. 50 0 The case of the Land Acquisition Officer was that the superstructures belonged to the State Transport Corporation and the claimant had no right title and interest therein and consequently he was not entitled to receive any compensation in respect thereof. The Land Acquisition Officer valued the land at the rate of Rs. 140. 00per guntha and awarded a total compensation of Rs. 9 800 for the land value. He also awarded a solatium of Rs. 1 470 for the land He further awarded a sum of Rs. 1 764 as interest on the amount of compensation for the delay in payment of the amount between the date of the taking of possession of land and the date of the award. The total compensation which the Land Acquisition Officer thus awarded to the claimant was Rs. 13 34 inclusive of the solatium and the interest. The Land Acquisition Officer rejected the claim for compensation for the structures on the ground that the claimant had no interest therein. The claimant was dissatisfied by this award and asked for a reference to the District Court of Kaira at Nadiad under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. 13 34 inclusive of the solatium and the interest. The Land Acquisition Officer rejected the claim for compensation for the structures on the ground that the claimant had no interest therein. The claimant was dissatisfied by this award and asked for a reference to the District Court of Kaira at Nadiad under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The reference was made and ultimately it came to be transferred for disposal to the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Nadiad. Before the learned Judge the claimant pressed his claim on both the above grounds. He repeated his claim for compensation for land at the rate of Rs. 3 0 guntha and for the structures he claimed a sum of Rs. 50 0 The learned Judge rejected the claimants claim for the superstructure but he valued the land at the rate of Rs. 800. 00per guntha and on that basis he awarded to the claimant an additional sum of Rs. 46 200 plus solatium at 15% and interest thereon on both the amounts from the date of the taking of possession of the land to the date of payment. Both the sides felt aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Civil Judge and preferred the appeals as already stated. In appeal No. 157 of 1960 the Land Acquisition Officer contends that he was right in making an offer of Rs. 140/per guntha. That appeal is directed against the additional claim awarded by the learned Civil Judge. In the cross appeal No. 167 of 1960 the claimant repeats his claims for land value at the rate of Rs. 3 0 per guntha and a compensation of Rs. 50 0 for the superstructure. Adding the solatium of 15% on the additional claim made by him in appeal the claimant claims a further sum of Rs. 2 34 600 in the cross appeal. ( 2 ) THE claimant relied upon four types of documentary evidence in the main and oral evidence in support of his claim. He relied upon six instances of sales. In addition he relied upon two awards of two different pieces of lands. He led oral evidence in support of these awards. In addition to this he also relied upon two judgments in connection with two Land Acquisition cases. One of them is embodied in Ex. He relied upon six instances of sales. In addition he relied upon two awards of two different pieces of lands. He led oral evidence in support of these awards. In addition to this he also relied upon two judgments in connection with two Land Acquisition cases. One of them is embodied in Ex. 53 which is a certified copy of the judgment of an Assistant Judge in respect of a land which was notified for acquisition on 11th December 1947 in which the learned Assistant Judge had given to the claimant therein a rate of Rs. 175. 00per guntha. He also relied upon Ex. 55 which is a copy of the judgment delivered by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Kaira in which he awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 300/per guntha in respect of the acquisition of survey Nos. 1496/b and C the notification under section 4 in respect of which was issued on 10th December 1949. It appears that an appeal was preferred from this judgment to the High Court of Bombay. The judgment delivered by the High Court in this appeal has be en brought on the record of this appeal by the claimant. By that judgment the compensation was increased to Rs. 600/per guntha in respect of survey No. 1496/b and to Rs. 550/per guntha in respect of survey No. 1496/c. The claimant also relied upon certain other documents in support of his claim for compensation. He relied upon an application for non-agricultural use of survey No. 1496/b which he had made to the Collector of Kaira. He also placed reliance upon Ex. 48 dated 17th August 1951 which was an agreement for sale of survey No. 1196/b which gave him a rate of about Rs. 3 0 per guntha. ( 3 ) THE learned Civil Judge in the main relied upon two instances of sales. One instance is embodied in Ex. 73 dated 17th December 1948 and the other is embodied in Ex. 76 dated 2nd January 1951. The learned Judge did not rely upon the other instances of sales nor does he seem to have placed reliance upon the awards. But the learned Judge did place reliance upon the two judgments Exs. 53 and 55. 73 dated 17th December 1948 and the other is embodied in Ex. 76 dated 2nd January 1951. The learned Judge did not rely upon the other instances of sales nor does he seem to have placed reliance upon the awards. But the learned Judge did place reliance upon the two judgments Exs. 53 and 55. It was the case of the claimant that since 1948 and 1949 there was a tendency for land values to increase in the locality in which survey No. 1496/a is situated. The learned Judge came to the conclusion that the evidence justified the view that the price of land at Anand was on the increase. As already stated mainly placing reliance upon Exs. 73 76 53 and 55 the learned Judge came. to the conclusions which we have already mentioned above. ( 4 ) IN this Court Mr. Rajni Patel the learned counsel for the claimant did not place any reliance upon either the two awards referred to above or upon the two judgments Exs. 53 and 54. He stated that for the purposes of this case it was not necessary to decide the contention urged by the learned Advocate General that awards and judgments delivered in other land acquisition cases were not relevant for the purpose of determining the valuation of the lands under acquisition. Mr. Rajni Patel stated that the two sale deeds Exs. 73 and 76 were not relied upon by him in the trial Court for the purpose of establishing the value of the land under acquisition. He stated that those two instances had been quoted by the claimant not for the purpose of establishing the value of the land under acquisition but they were proved for the purpose of establishing what the values were in other localities of Anand and also for establishing that the values had increased from 1948-49 onwards. Mr. Rajni Patel also did not rely upon some other documents on which reliance had been placed by the claimant in the trial Court and on one of which the learned Judge had relied. He did not place any reliance upon the agreement Ex 48 for sale of survey No. 14961b nor did he place any reliance upon the letter Ex. 32/1 written by the State Transport Corporation to the Assistant Milk Commissioner. He did not place any reliance upon the agreement Ex 48 for sale of survey No. 14961b nor did he place any reliance upon the letter Ex. 32/1 written by the State Transport Corporation to the Assistant Milk Commissioner. He did not also place any reliance upon the application for non-agricultural use of survey No. 1496/ -. But Mr. Rajni Patel very strongly placed reliance upon four other sale-deeds which were rejected by the learned Civil Judge. He contended that three of these sale-deeds furnished evidence about the prices prevailing in the locality in 1949. He further submitted that there was ample evidence in the case to show that the locality had developed further since 1949 and that land values had increased in the locality on that account and for some other reasons. He submitted that even if the Court was not prepared to agree with him that the lands were worth Rs. 3000/per guntha on the date of the notification under section 4 the evidence taken as a whole justified the view that they were certainly worth between Rs. 1 500 and Rs. 2 0 per guntha on that date. On the other hand the learned Advocate General contended that the four instances on which reliance was being placed by the claimant were no evidence in the case for the purpose of valuing the land in question. He submitted that therefore this was a case in which there was no evidence whatsoever to establish that the offer made by the Land Acquisition Officer to the claimant was an inadequate offer. Alternatively the learned Advocate General submitted that even if the aforesaid sales were regarded as instances which were useful for the purpose of arriving at a correct valuation of the land under acquisition there were important differences between the lands which were sold under those instances and the land under acquisition and on account of those differences the land under acquisition cannot be worth more than Rs. 200/per guntha. ( 5 ) MR. Rajni Patel however did not press the claim of the claimant for the value of the superstructures created by the State Transport Corporation on the land under acquisition after the same was requisitioned by the Government in 1949. 200/per guntha. ( 5 ) MR. Rajni Patel however did not press the claim of the claimant for the value of the superstructures created by the State Transport Corporation on the land under acquisition after the same was requisitioned by the Government in 1949. ( 6 ) THEREFORE the only dispute which survives for determination in both the appeals is as to what is the correct market value of the land under acquisition. It is only this point which requires to be decided in both the appeals. ( 7 ) BEFORE we examine the real contention it is necessary to state very briefly the situation of the land under acquisition and its broad features and the oral and the documentary evidence in the case. ( 8 ) AS already stated survey No. 1496/a is situated within the limits of the town of Anand. The Anand railway station is situated towards the north-east of the town. Between the railway station and the town are situated a number of plots of lands. It is not quite clear from the evidence as to whether these plots were or were not developed at the time of the notification on 21st February 1952. The evidence however discloses that in the year 1948-49 a road was constructed from the railway station to the villages of Chikodra and Lingda. That road runs from north to south. The road was constructed by acquiring certain pieces of lands which included a part of original survey No. 1496. After the construction of the road this survey number was cut up into two pieces which were marked as survey Nos. 1496/a and 1496/b. Survey No. 1496/a is situated to the west of this road. It is a rectangular piece having two frontages. One frontage is on the Anand Chikodra Lingda Road and the other is on a naliya which runs from east to west. According to the evidence in 1949 survey No. 1496/a was requisitioned by the Collector for the purpose of the State Transport Corporation. The latter constructed a workshop and a garage at this spot. It appears from the evidence that at about this time there was considerable building activity in this locality. According to the evidence in 1949 survey No. 1496/a was requisitioned by the Collector for the purpose of the State Transport Corporation. The latter constructed a workshop and a garage at this spot. It appears from the evidence that at about this time there was considerable building activity in this locality. The evidence shows that the owner of survey No. 2295 which is situated on the east of the road and towards the north of survey No. 1496/b divided that survey number into three parts and sold them as house-sites. The evidence also shows that in two of these plots houses worth about Rs. 30 0 to Rs. 35 0 came to be constructed. According to the evidence there were buildings also in survey Nos. 2294 2283 2284 2285 and 1530 which plots are all situated towards the south of survey No. 2295. Below these survey numbers is survey No. 2286 which according to the evidence was assigned or set apart for construction of Mamlatdars quarters. Similarly the plots situated towards the west of the road had also come under building activity. A T. B. Hospital came to be established in survey No. 2275/a and B and there were constructions also in survey Nos. 2298 2297 and 2296. All these survey numbers are situated on the opposite side of survey No. 2295 some of them towards the north and some of them towards the south. The evidence also discloses that survey Nos. 2292 and 2293 were set apart for Mamlatdars quarters and survey No. 2288 was set apart for Court. This latter survey number is just to the north of survey No. 1496a with only a naliya in between. The evidence also discloses that a big area forming a very big sector beginning from the north from survey No. 2279 to survey No. 1523 on the south was notified by the Government in 1949 for a dairy. Similarly survey Nos. 1499 1498 1501 1508 and 1509 were also notified for a Co-operative Housing Society. These survey numbers are situated just to the south of survey No. 1496/b The relevant notifications in respect of the dairy and the housing society were not on the record but they were shown to us from the Government Gazette by Mr. Rajni Patel. Those notifications show that all these lands were notified under section 6 for final acquisition sometime in the end of December 1949. Rajni Patel. Those notifications show that all these lands were notified under section 6 for final acquisition sometime in the end of December 1949. There is also evidence to show that there were buildings in survey Nos. 1501 1503 1504 and 1456 and 1455 which are towards the west and south-west of the sites selected for the housing society. The result of all this activity was that there were hardly three or four plots in this area which had not become developed before the notification on 21st February 1952 was issued. Therefore there is no doubt whatsoever that survey No. 1496 was no longer an agricultural field at the time of its acquisition nor was it only an agricultural field with a building potentiality. Actually it was a building site and before the date of the notification superstructures for a workshop and a garage had already been constructed in that survey number. The evidence discloses that some substantial buildings had come to be erected towards the north of survey No. 1496/a and building sites had been acquired towards the south and a big plot of land for a dairy had been acquired towards the east of survey No. 1496/a. ( 9 ) BEFORE we discuss the evidence relating to the sales on which Mr. Patel relied we would dispose of the evidence relating to the two sale-deeds Exs. 73 and 76 on which Mr. Patel relies for the purpose of showing that the prices in the locality were going up after 1948-49. The witness Motibhai Garbadbhai purchased four gunthas from out of survey No. 2284 measuring 1 acre and 11 gunthas for Rs. 6 0 on 17th December 1948 The average rate works out at Rs. 1 500 per guntha. Ex. 73 is the sale-deed. This sale-deed is hardly of any assistance in deciding the present case for any purpose. The sale took place on 17th December 1948 We have on the record sales of later dates which can assist us in fixing the value of the land under acquisition. Survey No. 2284 has no frontage on the Anand Lingda Road. It is situated in a different locality a little away from the Anand Cambay Railway line. The sale took place on 17th December 1948 We have on the record sales of later dates which can assist us in fixing the value of the land under acquisition. Survey No. 2284 has no frontage on the Anand Lingda Road. It is situated in a different locality a little away from the Anand Cambay Railway line. Moreover the sale having taken place in 1948 and there being no sale of any prior date of any land situated in the locality in which survey No. 2284 is situated this sale is of hardly any assistance in establishing that there was an upward trend of prices in the locality. ( 10 ) THE second sale-deed is Ex. 76 dated 2nd January 1951. The witness Umedbhai Vaghji purchased 5 gunthas from out of survey No. 682/2/b measuring 14 gunthas for Rs. 4 0 The rate works out at Rs. 800/per guntha. Now this survey number is situated very far away from the locality in which survey No. 1496/a is situated. The latter is situated on the west of the town and the former is situated on the east of the town. It is true that this sale is nearer in point of time to any other sale on the record and ordinarily may be expected to give a better idea of the sale price than any other sale But in order that this sale may be of any assistance or value it is obvious that the property which was sold under the sale must be near the land under acquisition. Having regard to the fact that the land sold under Ex. 76 was at considerable distance this sale can hardly be of any assistance for any purpose. Moreover there is no other sale of any land in this locality earlier than 2nd January 1951 In the absence of any such sale it is impossible to say anything as to the trend of prices in or about the town of Anand in the year 1951. ( 11 ) MR. Patel however placed strong reliance upon the sale-deed Ex 82 dated 23rd July 1954. Under this sale-deed the witness Dahyabhai Manorbhai purchased from survey No. 1509 measuring 28 gunthas one guntha and eleven square feet for Rs. 3 500 The rate works out at Rs. 3 388 per guntha. This survey No. 1509 is also not on the Anand Chikodra Lingda road. Under this sale-deed the witness Dahyabhai Manorbhai purchased from survey No. 1509 measuring 28 gunthas one guntha and eleven square feet for Rs. 3 500 The rate works out at Rs. 3 388 per guntha. This survey No. 1509 is also not on the Anand Chikodra Lingda road. It is situated near the Anand Cambay Railway line. Moreover there is no doubt whatsoever that this is a post-notification sale. The sale took place nearly two years and five months after survey No. 1496 was notified for acquisition. There is a likelihood of the sale having been affected by the notification and by the developments already enumerated which developments are likely to have been completed by about the time when this sale took place. Under the circumstances in our judgment this sale cannot be of much assistance in determining the purchase price of survey No. 1496/a on the date of the notification and it was rightly rejected by the learned Civil Judge. ( 12 ) THAT brings us to the group of three sales each of a portion of survey No. 3295 reference to which sales we have made above. On 19th April 1949 the owner Dalwadi Bhikhabhai Shankerbhai sold survey No. 2295 measuring 35 gunthas in three parts and executed three sale-deeds which are exhibited as Exs. 79 85 and 88. By Ex. 79 one Bhailal Lallubhai purchased 11 gunthas from survey No. 2295 for a price of Rs. 11 0 The witness Vadilal Jivabhai deposes that the part which was purchased was uneven and the purchaser had to spend a sum of Rs. 2 0 to Rs. 3 0 to make the land even. He also deposes that a house was constructed on it after the purchase at the cost of Rs. 30 0 to Rs. 35 0 The rate of this sale works out at Rs. 1 0 per guntha. By Ex. 85 one Dahyabhai Girdharbhai purchased 3 1/4 gunthas and 272 square feet from survey No. 2295 for a price of Rs. 3 471 The purchasers brother Gordhanbhai deposes to this sale having taken place. The sale price works out at Rs. 1030/per guntha. By Ex. 88 three brothers purchased 7 gunthas and 407 square feet from the same survey number for a price of Rs. 8 0 The rate of this purchase also works out at Rs. 1080/ per guntha. 3 471 The purchasers brother Gordhanbhai deposes to this sale having taken place. The sale price works out at Rs. 1030/per guntha. By Ex. 88 three brothers purchased 7 gunthas and 407 square feet from the same survey number for a price of Rs. 8 0 The rate of this purchase also works out at Rs. 1080/ per guntha. The witness Kalubhai a servant of one of the purchasers has been examined to prove the sale. ( 13 ) THERE is no doubt whatsoever that all the three sales were genuine sales. There is nothing in the cross-examination of any of the aforesaid three witnesses who depose to the sales which would go to show that any of the purchasers was an imprudent purchaser. There is no doubt that all the three purchasers intended to build houses or bungalows on the sites so purchased. ( 14 ) THE learned Civil Judge has rejected all these three sales on the ground that they were irrelevant. Prom the judgment it is difficult to understand the exact reason why the learned Judge holds these three sales to be irrelevant. The learned Advocate General did not attempt to justify the rejection on this ground. The ground on which he contended that the sales were not useful was a different one. He contended that the sales were stale sales and that though they were in respect of lands which were situated in the same locality in which survey No. 1496/a was situated the sales having taken place nearly 34 months before the date of the present notification could not be used for valuing survey No. 1496/a unless the claimant led further evidence in the case to show that the prices had remained steady between the date of the aforesaid sales and the date of the notification under section 4. The proposition for which the learned Advocate General contended was that in order that a sale could be of any assistance in the task of fixing the value of another land it must have taken place within an interval which is reasonable from the date of the notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. He said that he did not wish to be dogmatic as to what was a reasonable interval. He said that he did not wish to be dogmatic as to what was a reasonable interval. But he strenuously contended that a period of six months was the utmost limit which would prevent a sale from becoming stale and that any sale sought to be utilized after such a period was not of any assistance unless there was also evidence that the prices remained steady during the interval. The learned Advocate General contended that the test which should be applied for determining the question as to what was the reasonable interval which kept a sale wholesome was the same which was applied for determining the question as to what was the reasonable period of time for performance of contracts of sale of goods. We are unable to agree with the submission about the period and the test propounded by the learned Advocate General. We agree with him that in order that a sale may be useful it must not be a stale sale. It must remain wholesome. But we do not agree with him that a hard and fast rule should be laid down for determining the question whether a sale is wholesome or stale. In our judgment it is inadvisable and inexpedient to equate this question with the sale of goods. The question whether a sale is stale or wholesome is a question of fact. The Court must determine it with reference to the circumstances of each particular case. In determining it one of the important circumstances to bear in mind is the frequency of sales in the locality in which the land under acquisition is situated. If the evidence discloses that sales of lands in the locality take place at such short intervals as of a day or of a week or of a month then even an interval of six months will render a sale stale. If on the other hand the evidence is that the sale market is not brisk and sales take place at longer intervals then an interval of a few months or a few years will not necessarily make a sale a stale sale. In Gulam Hussein Ahmed Somaji and others v. Land Acquisition Officer South Salsette Bandra A I. R. 1928 Privy Council 305 presently to be noticed the Privy Council relied upon a sale which took place 14 months before the date of the notification for acquisition. In Gulam Hussein Ahmed Somaji and others v. Land Acquisition Officer South Salsette Bandra A I. R. 1928 Privy Council 305 presently to be noticed the Privy Council relied upon a sale which took place 14 months before the date of the notification for acquisition. In our judgment there are no materials on the record to show that the sales taking place in this locality were so brisk or rapid that an interval of 34 months must render the aforesaid three sales stale. Under the circumstances in our judgment although there is an interval of 34 months between the date of the sales and the date of the notification under section 4 the aforesaid three sales are relevant sales and ought to be taken into consideration. ( 15 ) HOWEVER the learned Advocate General further contended that even if this were so those sales were not of any assistance unless there was also evidence to the effect that price had remained steady during the interval between the date of the sales and the date of the notification and he contended that the burden of proving this was on the claimant. The learned Advocate General contended that there could not be any presumption of steadiness of prices. To controvert this submission Mr. Patel relied upon Gulam Hussein Ahmed Somaji and others v. Land Acquisition Officer South Salsette Bandra reported in A. I. R. 1928 Privy Council 305 already referred to. In this case the land under acquisition was purchased by the claimant 14 months before the date of the notification under the Land Acquisition Act. The learned Assistant Judge of Thana who decided the claim concluded that nothing was shown to have happened during the interval of 14 months which materially affected the value of the land between the date of the purchase and the date of the Governments declaration for acquisition and on that ground he held that the above sale was evidence of the market value of the land under acquisition. On appeal the decision was reversed by the High Court of Bombay on the ground that there was evidence to show that the prices had slumped after the date of the above sale. In the Privy Council the learned counsel for the Land Acquisition Officer conceded that there was no proper evidence to support the finding of the High Court that the prices had slumped. In the Privy Council the learned counsel for the Land Acquisition Officer conceded that there was no proper evidence to support the finding of the High Court that the prices had slumped. On this concession being made Their Lordships of the Privy Council made the following observations in deciding the case: ( 16 ) IN the absence of evidence Their Lordships are unable to find any reason for differing from the conclusion arrived at by the Assistant Judge and they are accordingly of opinion that this appeal should be allowed that the two decrees of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay dated 17th December 1925 should be set aside and that the two decrees of the Court of the Assistant Judge at Thana dated 24 September 1923 should be restored. ( 17 ) BECAUSE of these observations the learned Advocate General conceded that if the prices had slumped after the date of the relevant sale the burden was on the Land Acquisition Officer to prove the same. It was similarly conceded by Mr. Patel that if the case of the claimant was that the prices had gone up the burden of proving the same was on the claimant But the learned Advocate General maintained that the aforesaid Privy Council case did not affect his submission that if the sale happened to be removed from the date of the notification by an interval of time as in the present case then before the sale could be relied upon it was the duty of the claimant to lead evidence of steadiness of prices and that if no such evidence was led then the sale was of no avail to the claimant. We are unable to agree with this contention. The submission of the learned Advocate General is inconsistent with the observations of Their Lordships of the Privy Council quoted above on which their decision was based. In our judgment given a relevant sale if there was no evidence of slump or increase in prices it was open to the Court to proceed to decide the case that the price paid under the sale furnished a good guide for determining the value of land. In the present case moreover the claimants case is that the prices had not merely remained steady but they had actually gone up. In the present case moreover the claimants case is that the prices had not merely remained steady but they had actually gone up. We shall presently show that though that case has not been fully made out there is evidence a greater part of which has gone unchallenged showing that there was an upward trend of prices in the locality. Therefore in our judgment the aforesaid three sales do furnish a good piece of evidence to evaluate the land under acquisition. ( 18 ) [the rest of the judgment is not material for this report. ] appeal No. 167/60 partially allowed. .