Judgment Shambhu Prasad Singh, J. 1. This batch of five appeals arises out of judgment and decree dated 22-6-1964 passed by the learned 2nd Addl. Judicial Commissioner of Chota-nagpur, Ranchi, under which he revised the compensation awarded to the claimants, namely, the respondents, by the Collector. First Appeal No. 462 arises out of Land Acquisition Case No. 37/190 of 1963/64, First Appeal No. 463 arises out of Land Acquisition Case No. 40/193 of 1963/64, First Appeal No. 464 arises out of Land Acquisition Case No. 42/193 of 1963/64, First Appeal No. 465 arises out of Land Acquisition Case No. 41/188 of 1963/64 and First Appeal No. 466 arises out of Land Acquisition Case No. 39/192 of 1963/64, the claimants in the respective cases befng Lohra Toppo, Budhwa Oraon, Sobha Oraon with two others, Gondla Oraon and Etwa Oraon. The contention of the parties in this court being common, all these appeals are decided by a common judgment. 2. The facts giving rise to these appeals lie in a short compass. 4.63 acres of land in village Kadru, which is situated within the Doranda Notified Area of Ranchi Town was acquired for construction of quarters for forest staff. The notification relating to the acquisition was published in the Bihar Gazette on the 25th of September, 1961 and the value of the acquired land was fixed at the rate of Rs. 3,700.00 per acre. Notices under Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act were admittedly served on Lohra Toppo, Etwa Oraon and Gondla Oraon, who also filed their claim petitions in pursuance of such notice. According to them, the land should have been valued at the rate of Rs. 36,000 per acre. Service of notices on the claimants in the other two cases, namely, Budhwa Oraon and Sobha Oraon and others is, however, disputed. According to the defendant-appellant, the State of Bihar, proper service of notice had been made on them and yet they did not file any claim petition under Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act. According to the respondents, however, there was no proper service on them and, therefore, notwithstanding the non-filing of claim petitions, their cases were not hit by the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Sec.25 of the Land Acquisition Act. 3. According to the respondents, however, there was no proper service on them and, therefore, notwithstanding the non-filing of claim petitions, their cases were not hit by the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Sec.25 of the Land Acquisition Act. 3. Before the Judicial Commissioner, the claims on behalf of the claimants-respondents were contested on two grounds:- - (i) that the claim for enhanced compensation was hit by the provisions of subsection (2) of Sec.25 of the Land Acquisition Act at least in the cases of Budhwa Oraon and Sobha Oraon and others (Land Acquisition Case No. 40/193 of 1963/64 and Land Acquisition Case No. 42/193 of 1963/64); and (ii) that the valuation of the land fixed by the Collector at the rate of Rupees 3,700.00 per acre was fair and reasonable. The learned Judicial Commissioner found no merit in either of these two contentions. He found that claim petitions were duly filed in respect of three of the Land Acquisition Cases and so far as Land Acquisition Case No. 40/193 of 1963/64 and Land Acquisition Case No. 42/193 of 1963/64 were concerned, although no claim petition had been filed in them, there was no service of notice under Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act at least on some of the claimants in these cases and consequently, their claim for enhanced compensation could not be hit by Sec.25 of the Act. With regard to the question of valuation, he found that the land was situated on the outskirts of the Ranchi Town and although it was surrounded by Paddy fields on all sides without any approach road, yet its nature was such that its value at the rate of Rs. 3,700.00 per acre was definitely inadequate. The learned Judicial Commissioner took into consideration sale prices obtained on sales of certain lands in the vicinity evidenced by Exts. 1 (b) and B. In terms of the value paid before the Sub-Registrar for the lands covered by Ext. 1 (b), the value per acre of the land should have been Rs. 15,000/-and according to the value paid for the land under Ext. B, the valuation came to a little over Rs. 9,000.00 per acre and he thus fixed the value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 11,100.00 per acre. 4. Mr. 1 (b), the value per acre of the land should have been Rs. 15,000/-and according to the value paid for the land under Ext. B, the valuation came to a little over Rs. 9,000.00 per acre and he thus fixed the value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 11,100.00 per acre. 4. Mr. Verma, appearing for the appellant, submitted that the court below erred in entertaining the claim petitions on behalf of the claimants in the Land Acquisition Cases Nos. 40/193 and 42/193 inasmuch as notwithstanding a proper service of notice under Section 9 of the Act on them, they did not file any petition claiming higher compensation. He further submitted that having regard to the location of the land and its nature and also the fact that the average value per acre in terms of the average of the sale price between two of the sale deeds. Exts. 1 (b) and B, being a little over Rs. 9,000./-only, the court below had erred in valuing the acquired land at the rate of Rupees 11,100.00 per acre. Mr. L.K. Choudhary, who appeared for the respondents, supported the value of the land as fixed by the court below and also the validity of the order entertaining the claim for enhanced compensation in respect of the claims in cases Nos. 40/193 and 42/193. 5. I do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned Addl. Judicial Commissioner either on the question of maintainability of the claim for enhanced compensation in the aforesaid two cases or on the question relating to the valuation of the land acquired. There is no dispute that the claimants in the other three cases had duly filed their claim petitions under Section 9 of the Act. The dispute is only with regard to the claims under cases Nos. 40/193 and 42/193. 6. Mr. Verma, appearing for the appellant, referred to the evidence of Sobha Oraon, claimant in case No. 42/193 wherein he had stated that although he had received notice under Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act, he did not file any petition objecting to the compensation awarded. 40/193 and 42/193. 6. Mr. Verma, appearing for the appellant, referred to the evidence of Sobha Oraon, claimant in case No. 42/193 wherein he had stated that although he had received notice under Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act, he did not file any petition objecting to the compensation awarded. The learned Judicial Commissioner observed that in case No. 42/193 the claimant was not only Sobha Oraon, but also Sadhu and Bandhana and the service report of the notice under Section 9 showed that the notice was served only on one of the three, namely, Sobha. There was no mention in the service report that the said notice had been served on Sadhu and Bandhana also. Thus, the claim of Sadhu and Bandhana for enhanced compensation could not be hit by Sub-section (2) of Sec.25, of the Land Acquisition Act and since the award was an indivisible one, if it could be interfered with in respect of two of them, such interference would enure to the benefit of Sobha also. With regard to the claim under case No. 42/193, the learned Judicial Commissioner observed "no service report or any writ of notice under Section 9 has been brought on record to prove service of notice on them". I find by reference to the service reports in this case, which are Exts. E(3) and J(3) that the notice was sent to Budhwa Oraon, but he being dead, the process-server served the same on his son, Bijla Bhagat. I am not aware of any law under which a notice meant for tbe father who was by then dead could be served on the son without the son having been properly brought on the record as legal heir and representative of the deceased father. Thus although notice under Section 9 was received by Bijla Bhagat, son of Budhwa Oraon, such a service is no service at all in the eye of law and consequently, the case of the claimant under case No. 40/193 is also not hit by Sub-section (2) of Sec.25 of the Land Acquisition Act. The first contention raised by Mr. Verma, therefore, fails. 7. Coming now to the question of valuation, here also I think the learned Judicial Commissioners valuation of the acquired land is valid and proper. The first contention raised by Mr. Verma, therefore, fails. 7. Coming now to the question of valuation, here also I think the learned Judicial Commissioners valuation of the acquired land is valid and proper. As stated earlier, although the acquired land is surrounded by paddy fields; yet its location being in the Doranda Notified Area in the Ranchi Town and not far away from the main road, the acquired land had definitely certain advantages attached to it. On the question of valuation, the claimants examined P. Ws. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 8, who are six claimants in respect of their lands, which were also acquired. The State of Bihar has examined one witness, O. W. 1, Kameshwar Singh on this point. From the evidence of the claimants witnesses and the witness on behalf of the State of Bihar, one fact clearly emerges that the lands acquired are not very much removed from the Ranchi Chaibasa main road. According to the claimants witnesses, the acquired lands were at a distance of nearly 50 yards from that road. According to O. W. 1, however, the land lay at a distance of about 400 yards from the State road. Notwithstanding the disparity about the distance of the acquired lands from the main road, as observed earlier, the lands acquired are not far removed from the main road. This is itself a great advantage. Now on the question as to what should be the valuation of the acquired lands, the evidences on the record consist of certain sale-deeds of lands lying in village Kadru itself. According to Ext. L which was a sale-deed of 9.44 Kathas of plot No. 917. The value per acre worked out to Rs. 42,000/-. Similarly, in accordance with Ext. 1A, which was a sale-deed between Gopa Chand Sen and Nemi Chandra in respect of four kathas and odds of land, the valuation worked out at Rs. 36,000.00 per acre. If these two sale-deeds are relied upon, the valuation of the acquired lands, would have been much more than what has been fixed by the learned Judicial Commissioner. He however, rightly observed that these two sale-deeds could not be taken into consideration, because they represent sales of Chaparbandi lands, which the lands acquired were not. 36,000.00 per acre. If these two sale-deeds are relied upon, the valuation of the acquired lands, would have been much more than what has been fixed by the learned Judicial Commissioner. He however, rightly observed that these two sale-deeds could not be taken into consideration, because they represent sales of Chaparbandi lands, which the lands acquired were not. These two sale-deeds although have been discarded for determining valuation of the acquired lands would still give an idea as to the value of the lands situated in the village in which the acquired lands were situated. The most relevant document, however, is a sale-deed, dated 6-2-1961, Ext. 1b under which one Seraj Khan sold six kathas of land to Bibi Baburun Nisa and even if the consideration, which was paid before the Sub-Registrar was taken into consideration, the value of the said lands would work out at Rupees 15.000.00 per acre. Admittedly, this land is in close proximity of the lands acquired and bears the same character also. The notification under Sec. 4 in respect of the acquired lands being also only a few months later, namely on 25-9-1961 and the sale-deed having come into being on the 6th February, 1961, it is indeed a safe guide for determining the value of the acquired lands. Mr. Verma, appearing for the State of Bihar, submitted that the sale value of a small plot of land as evidenced by Ex. (1b) could not be a determining factor for finding out the value of the lands acquired and another plot of land sold vide-Ext. B indicated the average price per acre at Rs. 9,000.00 only. 8. I do not find any merit in the aforesaid contention. The sale of land evidenced by Ext. B was on the 13th of June, 1960, and in between that date and the date of acquisition of the land, in question, the value of the lands had definitely gone up as is obvious on looking at the sale prices received under Exts. 1, 1A and 1(b). I, therefore, think that Mr. Vermas argument that the value of the acquired , lands should not be determined on the basis of the sale deed Ext. 1 (b) cannot be accepted. Keeping therefore, the sale prices obtained under Ext. 1 (b) and after making proportionate adjustment to the price obtained under Ext. 1, 1A and 1(b). I, therefore, think that Mr. Vermas argument that the value of the acquired , lands should not be determined on the basis of the sale deed Ext. 1 (b) cannot be accepted. Keeping therefore, the sale prices obtained under Ext. 1 (b) and after making proportionate adjustment to the price obtained under Ext. B, I am of the opinion that the learned Judicial Commissioner rightly determined the value of the acquired lands at Rs. 11,100.00 per acre. 9. Both the contentions raised by Mr. Verma, appearing for the State of Bihar, having failed, the appeals fail and are dismissed with costs. Shambhu Prasad Singh, J. 10 I agree.