( 1 ) THIS is an appeal by one of the three claimants in certain land acquisition proceedings claiming an ennaucement over tne compensation awarded by the District Judge of Mercara confirming that awarded by the land Acquisition Officer. ( 2 ) THE property acquired was two cents of land with he two shop buildings thereon situated admittedly in a veiy busy commercial area of mercara called the Chowk. ( 3 ) THE Land Acquisition Officer valued the land at Rs. 6 per square foot acting upon no material other than me fact mat the said rate was suggested by me mahazardars. So far as the building is concerned, he accepted the valuation made by the municipal surveyor, winch was rs. 1,200. Inclusive of solatium, therefore, ne awarded a sum of Rs. 7,363 ( 4 ) BEFORE the District Judge the first claimant produced ana relied upon a sale deed Ex. A-2 dated 23--1-1052 under whicn his brother Abdul latiff had sold 1 cent of land with the shop building thereon situated only two fathoms away from me claimants property for Rs. 6,000. He also deposed that he was giving a rent of Rs. 20 from one of the tenants-the second claimant, and Rs. 25 from the other tenant-the third claimant, and also some more rent from third party in respect of the verandah. He staged that because of the deprivation of such valuable property situated in a very busy commercial locality, he is likely to suffer much hardship in addition to me loss oi a source oi secure income. ( 5 ) THE other claimants, the tenants who had not been awarded any portion of the compensation by the Land Acquisition Officer, deposed to facts relating to their length of tenancy, the area of the rooms occupied by them and other factors relevant to their claim lor apportionment of the compensation. ( 6 ) THE Land Acquisition Officer who gave evidence did not say anything which could be depended upon on thai question of compensation. One oi the mahazardars by name Annappa Rai was examined as RW. 4 on his behali. He frankly admitted that he did not know how to make estimates of the value of buildings or bunding sites and that he agreed to a rate of Rs. 6 per square foot in the mahazar because others also mentioned the same rate. One oi the mahazardars by name Annappa Rai was examined as RW. 4 on his behali. He frankly admitted that he did not know how to make estimates of the value of buildings or bunding sites and that he agreed to a rate of Rs. 6 per square foot in the mahazar because others also mentioned the same rate. The Supervisor spoke to his having made a valuation according to standard rates current in the municipality. He admitted that chowk was the busiest commercial centre of Mercara. ( 7 ) THE documentary evidence depended upon by the Municipality for whose benefit the land had been acquired was a sale deed Ex. b-2 dated 25-11-1960 under which it had purchased from one Shivaji Rao 310 square feet of land adjoining the land acquired at Rs. 6 per square foot. The oral evidence of both the first claimant as well as of the municipal supervisor, goes to show that the said Shivaji Rao had remodelled or reconstructed his shop building taking it some distance away from the edge of the road and that what was sold by him to the municipality under ex. B-2 was the vacant land in front of his shop as so remodelled. So far as the sale deed itself is concerned, the only evidence is that of a clerk of the municipality Madappa examined as RW. 3 who simply produced the sale deed and deposed to his having paid the consideration as one of the employees of the municipality. He could not answer the question whether the open space sold by Shivaji Rao was not of any particular use to him. Likewise, the Overseer could not state wheher the sale was forced upon him by such circumstances as indebtedness, etc. ( 8 ) IN confirming the award made by the Land Acquisition Officer, the District Judge relies upon two particular circumstances; (1) that the rate of Rs. 6 per square foot is fully supported by Ex. B-2 and (2) that the rate suggested by Ex. A-2 cannot be relied upon because the building thereon was much larger than the building existing on the land of the first claimant acquired in this case. ( 9 ) THE District Judge apart from failing to attach importance to the fact that the purchase under Ex. B-2 and (2) that the rate suggested by Ex. A-2 cannot be relied upon because the building thereon was much larger than the building existing on the land of the first claimant acquired in this case. ( 9 ) THE District Judge apart from failing to attach importance to the fact that the purchase under Ex. A-2 was also made by the same municipality has made a serious mistake of proceeding on the basis that the first claimant as a witness has actually admitted that his brother's building was 15 feet x 20 to 25 feet. There is no such admission or even a statement of the exact area of the brother's building in the oral evidence of the claimant. On the contrary, what he states in the examination is:"my brother (Abdul Latiff) had a house 2 fathoms away from these rooms. The Municipality purchased it 10-12 years ago, from him for Rs. 6,000. The house was 1 cent in area. My 2 rooms in question was of 2 cents. They were of the same quality as the house. " ( 10 ) THE reference in the cross-examination of the first claimant to the areas of the two rooms as 5ft by 6ft and 8ft by 10ft roughly are stated with reference to white-washing areas. They are not of any assistance in arriving at the plinth area of the buildings. Other witnesses have given different estimates of the area. PW. 2 says the rooms were each about 20ft. by 12ft. The third claimant says the room occupied by him was 10ft. by 8 ft. and the room occupied by the other claimant was smaller. But it is not necessary to try to reconcile these varying estimates because the exact measurements are available in the valuation list prepared by the Supervisor of the Municipality. We find therefrom that the outer measurement of the two rooms put together was 28ft. by lift. , and the floor areas were 10ft. by 8ft. , that is, 80 sq. ft. in one case and 11ft. by 11 ft. that is 126sq ft. in the case of the other room. The total outer area comes to about 308 sq ft. which cannot be much smaller than the building of Latiff because the area of Latiff's land was only 1 cent, that is, 435 sq. ft. , that is, 80 sq. ft. in one case and 11ft. by 11 ft. that is 126sq ft. in the case of the other room. The total outer area comes to about 308 sq ft. which cannot be much smaller than the building of Latiff because the area of Latiff's land was only 1 cent, that is, 435 sq. ft. ( 11 ) IT appears to us, therefore, that it is safe to proceed upon the footing that there could not be much of a difference between the value of latiffs building and the value of the two rooms standing on the first claimant's land acquired in this case. The value as fixed by the Supervisor is Rs. 1,200 for the buildings. Even assuming that Latiff's building might be valued at Rs. 1,500 the value of 1 cent of land purchased by the Municipality from Latiff under Ex. A-2 could not have been less than Rs. 4,500. At that rate, the 2 cents of land of the first claimant acquired in this case should have been properly valued at Rs. 9,000. ( 12 ) THE argument strongly pressed against our placing this value on the land on behalf of the Land Acquisition Officer-respondent is that under Ex. B-2 which is of a date much nearer the date of acquisition (which was October 1962), the value stipulated for one square foot of land adjacent to the land acquired in this case was only Rs. 6. But the difficulty in giving full effect to this argument is that the vendor Shivaji Rao has not been examined. The clerk of the Municipality who produced that sale-deed is unable to speak to the details or the circumstances in which shivaji Rao came to sell the land at only Rs. 6 per square foot whereas the circumstances and facts narrated by the first claimant in his evidence in regard to Latiff's sale are sufficient to support the conclusion mentioned above. ( 13 ) WHAT is more, the purchaser under Ex. A-2 was also the Municipality and no explanation is furnished by the Municipality why it paid so high a rate as Rs. 4,500 per cent of land in 1952. ( 13 ) WHAT is more, the purchaser under Ex. A-2 was also the Municipality and no explanation is furnished by the Municipality why it paid so high a rate as Rs. 4,500 per cent of land in 1952. Whether or not the land values have gone up four-fold as the claimant suggests, there can be no doubt whatever, even according to the admissions made by the Supervisor of the Municipality, that the value of land did show a tendency to rise and the Chowk where the acquired land is situated is admittedly the busiest commercial locality in Mercara Municipality. We have no hesitation, therefore, in holding that the land should have been valued at not less than Rs. 9,000. Adding thereto the value of the building as determined by the Supervisor at Rs. 1,200 the total compensation comes to rs. 10,200. With the solatium the amount payable to the appellant would exceed Rs. 11,000. But the appellant has limited his claim to Rs. 11,000 inclusive of solatium. ( 14 ) SO far as the apportionment of the compensation and the direction, of the District Judge to pay Rs. 500 to the second claimant and Rs. 1,000 to the third claimant, are concerned, we see no reason to agree with the appellant's contention that the same should not have been ordered. That part of the award made by the District Judge does not, therefore, call for any interference. ( 15 ) THE appeal, therefore, is allowed in part. The direction of the district Judge regarding the payment of Rs. 500 to the second claimant and Rs. 1,000 to the third claimant is confirmed. But, the total compensation is enhanced to Rs. 11,000 inclusive of solatium. On the enhanced amount, the first claimant will be entitled to interest at the rate of Rs. 5 per cent per annum from the date of possession till deposit. The parties will bear then own costs in this Court. --- *** --- .