JUDGMENT AGGARWAL J.- The appellant company, Messrs Gleitleger (India) Private Limited was incorporated in June 1962. It shall hereinafter he referred to as "the claimants". They own lands situated in village Majiwada Taluka Thane District Thane. These lands were purchased by two sale deeds dated 30-5-1964 (Ex. 182) and 26-11-1964 (Ex. 55). For both the transactions the vendors were Eddio Mortin Alveres and Mrs. Gladyo Mildred Alveres. Under the sale deed dated 30-5-1964, the claimants purchased agricultural lands bearing survey Nos. 173/2, 173/4, 173/5, 173/6, 176/2, 176/3; 342 (part) 165 and 166 (part), admeasuring 60000 square yards for Rs. 300,000 @ Rs. 5 per square yard. 2. By the other sale deed agricultural lands admeasuring 103,313 sq. yards (21 acres and 13 gunthes) comprising among others survey Nos. 167/1. 167/7, 170/4, 170/5, 170/6, 170/9, 170/11, 171/1 and 171/3 were purchased also @ Rs. 5 per square yard for Rs. 5,16,500. 3. By Notification bearing No. LTH 2665 dated April 12, 1965 of the Government of Maharashtra and as amended by Notification No. LTH 2665 dated April 30, 1965, the said survey Nos. 167/1, 167/7, 170/4, 170/5, 170/6, 170/9, 170/11, 171/1 and 171/3, admeasuring 32942½ sq. yards (6acres 32 gunthes and 4 annas) were acquired for Messrs Voltas Ltd. for their industrial workers housing colony. The Special Land Acquisition Officer. Thane, by his award dated July 28,1967, awarded compensation of Rs. 1,32,034 including Rs. 265 for well and trees and 15% solatium thereon making a total of Rs. 1,52,839-10. The said compensation worked out at the rate of Rs. 4 per sq. yard. 4. Being not satisfied with the award, the claimants moved the Special Land Acquisition Officer, to make a reference to the Court under section 18 of the land Acquisition Act, 1894, for determination of the quantum of compensation. The claimants stated that the compensation awarded was too low and utterly inadequate and submitted that the compensation ought to have been awarded @ Rs. 15 per square yard and they thus claimed Rs. 4,94,130. The respondent by his written statement contended that the Land Acquisition Officer, after due consideration of the situation and the potentiality of the lands and on considering all relevant factors relating to the land has rightly awarded Rs. 4 per sq. yard as compensation for lands and that the claim for enhanced compensation at Rs. 15 per sq. yard was unreasonable and excessive. 5. 4 per sq. yard as compensation for lands and that the claim for enhanced compensation at Rs. 15 per sq. yard was unreasonable and excessive. 5. On those pleadings the learned Civil Judge raised the necessary issues. The parties led considerable oral and documentary evidence in support of their case. The Learned Civil Judge held that the claimants failed to prove that compensation awarded was inadequate and by his judgment and order dated January 7, 1969, dismissed the reference and directed the claimants to pay the costs of the proceedings to the other side and bear their own costs. The present First Appeal is directed against the decision. 6. Before we proceed to consider the rival contentions it is necessary to have some idea about the nature and character of the acquired lands. In this connection Maps Ex. 119 and Ex. 124 are prepared by the claimant's Architect Subhash Ramchandra Pandit. His detailed valuation report is at Ex. 119, Maps Ex. 120 and Ex. 147 are produced on behalf of the respondent by their witness Aziz Safi Dhake, a Surveyor in the Land Record Department of the State of Maharashtra from 1954 to 1961. According to Shri Pandit the acquired lands form a part of a big piece of land which was already converted for non agricultural use. The claimants have set up a factory on the southern side of the acquired lands. The acquired lands fall in residential zone surrounded by an already developed industrial zone where companies like M/s. Surendra Industrials Ltd., Asian Cables, British Drug House, Devidayal Cable Industries Ltd., Hoist-O-Mech-Ltd., Techni Glass Pvt. Ltd., Excello Pvt. Ltd, Azofen Ltd., Glaxo Laboratories, M/s. Voltas Ltd., etc. are located. The Glaxo Laboratories had developed a nice residential staff colony and the Maharashtra Housing Board has also constructed some more tenements for industrial workers. The acquired lands are situated near but beyond Thane Municipal Limit. The acquired lands are only about 3½ miles from the Thane Railway Station and local bus service is run by Maharashtra State Transport Corporation. The buses operate along the 2nd Pokharan Road adjacent to the acquired lands at regular intervals. The Bombay Agra Road and the Eastern Express High way is at a distance of 6 furlongs from the claimants property. The acquired lands can enjoy all the facilities like School, Market, Banks etc. The buses operate along the 2nd Pokharan Road adjacent to the acquired lands at regular intervals. The Bombay Agra Road and the Eastern Express High way is at a distance of 6 furlongs from the claimants property. The acquired lands can enjoy all the facilities like School, Market, Banks etc. of a developed district Town like Thane without paying Municipal taxes. The acquired lands are approachable by a private road, 30 ft. wide asphalt carpeted, off 2nd Pokharan Road. This private road is of the ownership of the claimants in their possession. As per the development plan prepared by the Government the private road is going to be 80 ft. wide public road in future. The land is rocky with hard murum strata which is good for building construction. There is a natural and gradual slope to the area as such there is no water accumulation in the plot and the rain water finds its own way into the nala passing west-east touching the property. The land has got its natural levels and no site development is necessary before starting any residential building work. 7. The map Ex. 119 shows that the acquired lands are not directly connected with the road passing along the claimant's factory and the Glaxo Housing Colony on the south side of the acquired lands and Wyman Garden and Excello India. Glaxo Housing Colony is further served by the 2nd Pokharan Road. On that road the company named Hoist-O-Mech-Ltd. is located. The map Ex. 124 shows that Hoist-O-Mech-Ltd. is also served by another road running along the properties of Hoist-O-Mech-Ltd., British Drug House and Techni Glass Private Ltd. 8. Mr. Khambatta the learned counsel for the claimants relied upon 12 instances of sales. The first instance is of August 8, 1961. The rate works out @ Rs. 7-25 per square yard. The learned counsel however did not rely on this transaction. The remaining instances can be classified into certain categories. The first category is of two instances of pre-notification period, namely the said sales under Ex. 182 and Ex. 55 by Eddie Martin Alvares and Mrs. Gladyo Mildred Alvares to the claimants. Here the price is @ Rs. 5 per square yard in both the cases. The second category consisted of a single instance of sale (pre notification) by Hasmukhlal Nathalal and others to M/s Hoist-O-Mech-Ltd. This speaks of 12-40 per sq. yard. 182 and Ex. 55 by Eddie Martin Alvares and Mrs. Gladyo Mildred Alvares to the claimants. Here the price is @ Rs. 5 per square yard in both the cases. The second category consisted of a single instance of sale (pre notification) by Hasmukhlal Nathalal and others to M/s Hoist-O-Mech-Ltd. This speaks of 12-40 per sq. yard. The third category consisted of seven instances of sale all of post notification period. The prices range between Rs. 10 to Rs. 20 per square yard. In the fourth and last category is one instance of sale of post notification period in which the price was not mutually fixed between the vendor and vendee but by an Award of the arbitrator. The rate awarded was Rs. 7-25 per square yard. A mere glance at the prices shows that the price in the first category is the lowest. But in the event of the claimants not succeeding in proving other sales and showing that these instances are comparable they would naturally like to be paid at least what they had paid for the acquired lands a few months before their acquisition and hence both sides laid considerable emphasis on these two sales. 9. Mr. Khambatta contended that the finding of the lower Court that the claimants' two sales transactions are not genuine is erroneous. He submitted that the vendor Eddie Martin Alvares could not be examined by the claimants as he was hostile to them. Before we embark upon the appreciation of evidence it is necessary to note that the nature and scope of our inquiry is limited to the price. It is well settled that to the extent a claimant challenges the award he is in the position of a plaintiff and the burden is upon him to satisfy the court that the award is not proper and fair. The sales that a claimant can rely upon are the genuine sales, which were effected at bona fide price and represent a proper value. The court has to rely upon sales which are effected between a willing seller and a willing purchaser. 10. On behalf of the claimants Jaising Keshraj Morarji, Joint Managing Director stated that the company was incorporated on 25th June 1962 and he is a member and Director of the Company from the beginning. He said that the question of acquisition arose in 1962. 10. On behalf of the claimants Jaising Keshraj Morarji, Joint Managing Director stated that the company was incorporated on 25th June 1962 and he is a member and Director of the Company from the beginning. He said that the question of acquisition arose in 1962. He further said: "After seeing the land in 1961 we decided to get the land from Alvares. We applied to get the licence of industry. At that time we wanted that the factory would be at Thane. We were to buy the land at a price. The talk of purchase of the land was subsequent to the finalisation of the company. In the middle of 1963, the negotiations with Alvares took place. I again say that the negotiations were in 1961. I had an idea about the price of the land in 1961. In Wagale Industrial Estate the land was not available between Rs. 15 per square yard in 1961-62. Indian Rubber Rage was to start. I made enquiries at Pareh Pakadi. The rates were Rs. 20, Rs. 30 per sq. yard. We wanted a big plot. We were not inclined to purchase the land at high price. In the beginning Alvares agreed to sell the land orally. It was in 1961. Alvares had purchased the land to start a heavy factory. Alvares had applied to the Collector in 1962 for permission to purchase the land. There was condition to use it for N. A. within 12 months. In 1960 April, only permissions were given to sell the land. Both the permissions contain the condition to use the land for N. A. within 12 months. Alvares received a notice by the Collector to forfeit. It was in 1962. It was on 25-4-1962. Thereafter Alvares went in appeal. The matter was recommended to the Collector. The Collector issued an order to use it for N. A. within 6 months. It was in 8-8-1963. Alvares was to sell the land as it was to be put for N. A. within 6 months and as he was liable to pay debts to others, Marwaries with a high rate of interest. That debt was against the deposit of title deeds. There was a mortgage of Rs. 70000 created by Alvares. The deed could not be returned unless the debts are satisfied. We paid the debt before the completion of the transaction. We paid Rs. 30000 for Alvares (for stamp). That debt was against the deposit of title deeds. There was a mortgage of Rs. 70000 created by Alvares. The deed could not be returned unless the debts are satisfied. We paid the debt before the completion of the transaction. We paid Rs. 30000 for Alvares (for stamp). Alvares had no money for stamp and for the release of document. The amount was adjusted at the time of the sale-deed taken by the claimants. It is dated 30-5-1964. It was first. The 2nd deed is dated 26-11-1964. After seeing the first deed I say that the original deed is with the Bank concern. It is with the Bank as security. The original is signed by me. Alvares signed the original in my presence. After seeing the original deed dated 26-11-1964 I say it is signed by the vendors in my presence. I am familiar with the signature of the vendor. I identify it. There were negotiations between the claimants and the vendors before the sale-deed for the price of the land. Alvares was demanding more price. More than Rs. 5 per square yard. In view of the circumstances he had to sell it at the rate of Rs. 5 per square yard. There was no other reason to sell the land except the two reasons stated above." In cross-examination it was stated that Trivedi and Alvares formed company in the name of Trivedi and Alvares Private Limited, and for the purpose of obtaining a licence the acquired land was shown as the land of that company and all the rights of the company were transferred to the claimants. The claimants started in collaboration with German Co., and the licence obtained by Trivedi and Co., was transferred to the claimants and Alvares was one of owners of it. But subsequently the witness stated that Alvares was not a partner in Trivedi & Co, There was Trivedi Alvares Pvt. Ltd. but the industrial licence was not in the name of that Company. There were no assets of Trivedi Alvares and Co. and that Company did not transfer any assets to him. The witness admitted that in the Board Meeting, he met Alvares and Alvares knows about the present reference. The witness said that "on account of certain circumstances the relations with Alvares are not as they were". In 1961 he agreed with Alvares to purchase the acquired lands. and that Company did not transfer any assets to him. The witness admitted that in the Board Meeting, he met Alvares and Alvares knows about the present reference. The witness said that "on account of certain circumstances the relations with Alvares are not as they were". In 1961 he agreed with Alvares to purchase the acquired lands. There was a resolution to purchase the land but it was in 1962. It was not necessary to have written agreement in 1961. Alvares purchased the acquired and other lands in 1958-59 at the rate of Rs. 1 or so per square yard and that sale deed is in possession of the claimants. The claimants purchased 1,63,000 square yard, and Rs. 70,000 were advanced to Alvares before the completion of the deed and that no earnest money was paid. 11. The witness said that he did not know that Alvares was to pay penalty of some lacs to the Collector and they were not aware of the forfeiture matter when they purchased it. The witness stated that though Alvares was at Thane he was not to be examined on behalf of the claimants. He denied the suggestion that there was no agreement to purchase the land before 1964. He further denied that in order to favour Alvares the witness had paid much price for the land. The witness however, volunteered that on the contrary Alvares was under claimant's obligation. The claimants paid Rs. 50000 to Trivedi and ,Alvares by way of shares for getting their entire project. The witness stated that it was not a fact that the claimants paid the price to Alvares including all the factors like industrial licence etc. The witness volunteered that Alvares had nothing to do with the licence which was issued to K. S. Trivedi and Co. 12. The witness was re-examined. It is necessary to note that in the examination-in-chief, the witness has stated that in the middle of 1963, negotiations with Alvares took place. He again said that the negotiations were in 1961. 13. The purpose of the question which was sought to be put in reexamination was that the 1961 negotiations and the 1963 negotiations were different. These questions were disallowed, and we think rightly so because a kind of distinction was intended to be introduced so as to nullify the effect of earlier deposition. 13. The purpose of the question which was sought to be put in reexamination was that the 1961 negotiations and the 1963 negotiations were different. These questions were disallowed, and we think rightly so because a kind of distinction was intended to be introduced so as to nullify the effect of earlier deposition. The witness had already said that it was not necessary to have the written-agreement in 1961 but in re-examination he was asked as to why it was not necessary. The answer given was that he had relations with Alvares. 14. He was further questioned, "what is the nature and extent of relations with Alvares?" He answered that the relations were not very good, 15. The evidence indicates certain transactions between the witness and K. J. Trivedi involving Alvares's lands. We must say that the witness did not give evidence in a straight forward manner. The fact that the claimants decided not to examine Alvares and failed to produce their books of accounts makes it difficult to accept the statement or acknowledgement in the conveyance deeds that the money had in fact passed. Regarding the price of Rs. 5,16,000 there is no affirmation even on oath much less of documentary evidence. In 1962 the witness knew about the proposal of the present acquisitions. He was aware that Alvares had purchased the lands in 1959 @ Re. 1 per square yard. According to him he orally agreed to purchase the lands in 1961 and that he did not want to pay a high price. Now according to the claimants Architect Shri Pandit, Alvares had sold Survey No. 342 and Survey No. 166 in September 1962 to M Is Wyman Gardon Ltd., @ Rs. 3-50 per square yard. Another instance of sale quoted by their Architect is of 1963 @ Rs. 3-75 per square yard to M/s Techni Glass Ltd. These lands are better situated than the acquired lands. An these circumstances lead us to a reasonable inference that the price of Rs. 5 per square yard alleged to have paid by the claimants pursuant to the oral agreement of 1961 does not seem to represent a bona fide value. In our view the evidence of Morarji is not firm and reliable and therefore it would not be safe to depend upon it in determining the fair value of the acquired lands. 16. 5 per square yard alleged to have paid by the claimants pursuant to the oral agreement of 1961 does not seem to represent a bona fide value. In our view the evidence of Morarji is not firm and reliable and therefore it would not be safe to depend upon it in determining the fair value of the acquired lands. 16. Another witness whose evidence requires consideration on this point is Parakash Pravinchandra Zaveri, Chartered Accountant-cum-Manager of the claimant's company. He joined the service of the Company in October 1966 and stated at the out set of his examination-in-chief as follows: "P. M. Alvares is a Director of the claimants company. The relations with Alvares and the claimants company are strained and hostile. There are many reasons for saying so. I joined the company in October 1966. Since within a month of my joining it since November 1966 I noted that his relations were hostile." The witness stated that in order to acquaint himself with the affairs of the company he had seen the old record and found that though majority of the original directors of the company had participated in the various allotments of share capital there was no increase in the share holding of Alvares. The witness gave reasons about the strained relations between Alvares and the claimants. (I) Alvares had been asked to participate in the increase of the share capital and then co-operate with the company but he had not done so in spite of several requests, (II) the claimants manufacture thick ball bearings for use in automobile engines. Alvares is associated with Brady and Co. It was in the interest of the claimants to take their co-operation in selling bearings. Alvares was contacted on telephone for appointment but he was very rude and did not want to be bothered with the affairs of the claimants, (III) Alvares hardly remained present for the meetings of the Board though often requested. He did not attend the office of the claimants and (IV) Alvares was not seen doing anything in the interest of the claimants since the witness joined the claimants. In cross-examination he said, that Alvares is a Director of the company since the beginning in terms of Articles of Association without holding any shares. The authorised share capital is of Rs. 30.00,000. In cross-examination he said, that Alvares is a Director of the company since the beginning in terms of Articles of Association without holding any shares. The authorised share capital is of Rs. 30.00,000. Articles of Association have been amended to allow Alvares to continue as Director by virtue of his holding Rs. 200000 worth of shares. According to the witness the claimant's account would show that the amount of Rs. 5,16,500 was paid to Alvares. The witness was asked if he would produce the account. But this question was objected to on behalf of the claimants. 17. The witness further stated that he did not know from which Bank the amount was paid as it was paid prior to his joining the company. He knew that the amount was paid to Alvares on 26-11-1964 as the document says so. He stated that he carries on private practice as Chartered Accountant in the premises of the claimant. 18. The witness was examined to make out a case of hostility and strained relationship between the claimants and Alvares. Morarji in his evidence was silent about the reasons narrated by Zaveri. This gives a feeling that the reasons are an afterthought. The reasons are artificial and in the realm of Zaveri's own impressions and opinion. Even through this witness the books of accounts were not produced nor it was shown from which account the payment of Rs. 5,16,500 under Ex. 55 was made. The claimants have kept back the best evidence. It was not the claimant's case that Alvares was not available. No communication was addressed to Alvares for giving evidence in the present case. It seems that for reasons best known to the claimants Alvares has been intentionally kept back on the lame excuse that he was hostile to the claimants in other words he would not support the receipt of the consideration of Rs. 30000 and Rs. 5,16000 for. he may tell his own story about these transactions. A party cannot decide for itself whether a witness is hostile without putting him in the witness-box. While the witness is in the box the party has to lay a foundation for the theory that the witness has turned hostile to his case. 30000 and Rs. 5,16000 for. he may tell his own story about these transactions. A party cannot decide for itself whether a witness is hostile without putting him in the witness-box. While the witness is in the box the party has to lay a foundation for the theory that the witness has turned hostile to his case. A witness cannot be treated as hostile merely because he is unfavourable to the party examining him and the fact that a witness has become hostile has to be established by eliciting information suggesting hostility. It is in these circumstances that the Court may at its discretion permit the person who calls a witness to put any question to him which might be put in cross-examination by an adverse party as laid down in section 154 of the Evidence Act. A witness giving unfavourable answers might be telling the truth which goes against the party calling him. 19. It was next urged that it was not necessary to examine Alvares in view of the acknowledgment of the consideration by the vendors under the sale-deeds. Now sale is defined by section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 as a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid or promised or part paid and part promised. Therefore, to substantiate a sale it is not necessary that the whole price should be paid at the time of execution. The price may be paid or promised wholly or in part. We have to confine ourselves to the question of price, on the facts and circumstances of the present case. Normally the passing of considerations cannot be challenged except by the parties to the transactions or those who claim through them but where the payment of price is disputed then the party contending that the price has been paid has to establish the fact of payment like any other fact. In the present case the burden was on the claimants to show that the transactions are bonafide inasmuch as they have actually paid the price mentioned in the sale deed so that they could rely upon that transaction for determining the compensation of the acquired lands. As discussed above the evidence regarding payment of Rs. 300,000 is not satisfactory and there is no positive evidence about the payment of Rs. 516000. As discussed above the evidence regarding payment of Rs. 300,000 is not satisfactory and there is no positive evidence about the payment of Rs. 516000. In the circumstance the mere recital in the sale-deed that the price has been paid and acknowledgement by vendors that the price has been received is not sufficient on the facts of this case. 20. Mr. Khambatta next urged that there is acceptable evidence or record and therefore it was not necessary to examine Alvares. 21. The first document referred to was the balance-sheet Ex. 138, for the year ending 31 -6-1963. This balance-sheet is of no help to the claimants. It is completely silent about the amount of Rs. 70000 much less any item of "earnest money" of Rs. 70000. The second document relied upon was the first Annual Report for the year 1962-63 (Ex. 140). It was pointed out that under the heading "General", it is stated that the company had negotiated for the purchase of land at Thane and that the plans for the building had been designed by the foreign Collaborators. Now this reference to the negotiations for the purchase of land at Thane is neither here nor there because there is nothing to show that this reference relates to the lands of Mr. & Mrs. Alvares. Therefore, this piece of evidence is also of no avail to the claimants. The third document strongly relied upon was the certificate Ex. 137 issued by the Canara Bank Ltd., Dadar, (West) Bombay, dated 22-8-1968, and submitted that the learned trial judge was in error in discarding this certificate from consideration as according to the learned Judge this was not admissible in evidence. Mr. Khambatta is right in his submission that the learned civil Judge overlooked the provisions of the Bankers' Books Evidence Act, 1891. Section 4 of that Act says that a certified copy of any entry in a Bankers' book shall in all legal proceedings be received as prima facie evidence of the existence of such entry, and shall be admitted as evidence of the matters, transactions and accounts therein recorded in every case where and to the same extent as the original entry itself is now by law admissible but not further or otherwise. Therefore, the certificate Ex. 137 is admissible for the limited purpose. The entries in Ex. Therefore, the certificate Ex. 137 is admissible for the limited purpose. The entries in Ex. 137 are prima facie evidence of the entries or of the matters, transactions and accounts therein 'stated but it is well settled that more entries from Bank's books of account or mere copies thereof are not sufficient to charge person with liability except where person concerned accepts correctness- of entries. (See Chandradhar Goswami and others v. Gauhati Bank Ltd.1). The three relevant items in Ex. 137 are ;- S. No.Dt. paid.Ch. No.PayeeAmount 1. 11-2-1964601606Shri F.M. Alvares. 70,000 2.1-6-1964 601658M/s. Mulla & mulla.30,000 3.1-6-1964 601659Shri F.M. Alvares.200,000 Though these entries are prima facie evidence of payments to Alvares and M/s Mulla and Mulla but they do not show for what purpose these payments were made. Mr. Khambatta could relate these payments to the sale-deed dated 30th May 1964. According to him Rs. 70000 is the earnest money. Rs. 30000 is the stamp duty which is reflected on the sale-deed and Rs. 2 lacs is the balance of the consideration so as to make the total consideration of Rs. 3 lacs. In appreciating Mr. Khambatta's argument it is necessary to note that the claimants' witness Morarji's evidence shows that Rs. 70,000 were paid to discharge the mortgage debt of Alvares. Morarji stated that no earnest was paid. Again according to, Morarji, Alvares was in financial difficulties and was liable to pay the debts of Marwaries with high rate of interest. The evidence is not clear about the alleged payments to Alvares or on his behalf to his creditors. Mere entry in the Banker's certificate is not sufficient to show that the amount of Rs. 70000 represented by cheque No. 601606 dated 11-2-1964 was in respect of earnest money as urged by Mr. Khambatta. Regarding the payment of Rs. 30000 for Stamp duty it is to be noted that the endorsement on sale-deed Ex. 182 shows that stamp duty was of Rs. 31500. This discrepancy is not explained. It is curious that the Claimants did not produce their books of accounts and vouchers and wanted to rely on the entries in their Bankers Book. Mr. Khambatta did not show us any material on record which evidences the payment of the consideration of Rs. 5,16,500 under the second transaction of sale-deed dated 26-11-1964. 31500. This discrepancy is not explained. It is curious that the Claimants did not produce their books of accounts and vouchers and wanted to rely on the entries in their Bankers Book. Mr. Khambatta did not show us any material on record which evidences the payment of the consideration of Rs. 5,16,500 under the second transaction of sale-deed dated 26-11-1964. In fact this is the material transaction as the lands purchased thereunder have been acquired and not those purchased earlier. 22. Another submission made by Mr. Khambatta was that no point about the genuineness of those transactions was raised before the Land Acquisition Officer. Learned Counsel explained that it was not the case of the respondent before the Land Acquisition Officer, that these transactions are suspect and he was the first authority which considered these transactions as independent instances and therefore we must give due weight to his accepting them. Mr. Khambatta further pointed out that the respondent in his written statement Ex. 10, has not challenged these transactions. 23. Now in so far as Land Acquisition Officer is concerned, though he has referred to them but that does not debar the respondent from disputing their genuineness in a reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. As regards Mr. Khambatta's objection on the basis of the written statement Ex. 10, it is to be noted that the claimants in their statement of claim had made no specific averment or submission to their own purchase from Alvares and therefore there was no question of the respondent joining issue at that stage. 24. The learned Government Pleader urged that assuming that these transactions are genuine and they represent the market value as prevailing in May and November 1964, there is no appreciation of value between the date of these transactions and the notification under section 4 issued in April 1965. 25. The learned Government Pleader referred to (Gulam Hussein Ahmed Somaji and others v. Land Acquisition Officer, South Salsettle Bandra2, K.P. Frenchman v. The Assistant Collector Haveli3, N.C. John's Trust Alleopay v. State of Kerala and others4. An unreported decision of this Court in F. A. No. 655 of 1964, decided on 29-4-1976, to which my brother Vaidya J. was a party) to show that in any event the claimants cannot receive more than what they had paid for the acquired lands. An unreported decision of this Court in F. A. No. 655 of 1964, decided on 29-4-1976, to which my brother Vaidya J. was a party) to show that in any event the claimants cannot receive more than what they had paid for the acquired lands. It is not necessary to refers to these authorities as statement of law is lucidly pronounced by Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the Dollar Company, Madras v. Collector of Madrad5, wherein it is said: "An actual transaction with respect to the specific land of recent date in guidebook that Courts may not neglect when called upon to fix the precise compensation. The best evidence of the value of property is the sale of the very property to which the claimant is a party. If the sale is of recent date, then all that need normally be proved is that the sale was between a Willing purchaser and a Willing seller, that there has not been any appreciable rise or fall since and that nothing has been done on the land during the short interval to raise its value. Price Paid by the own recently represents an expression of market value, a bona fide evidence of value, subject to such matters as (a) the relationship of the parties (b) The market condition and the terms of sale and (c) the date of sale. It may not end the enquiry but goes a long way to solve the problem. Applying these principles to the case before us it is true that the instance of sale of November 1964 was of more recent time in view of the acquisition of the land in April 1965 and therefore it would have gone long way to assist us in fixing the lair compensation. For the reasons indicated before we are unable to place reliance on these transactions. Therefore the claimants are not entitled to be paid at the rate of Rs. 5 per square yard. 26. Coming to the transaction of Hoist-O-Mech-Ltd. in the second category Mr. Khambatta submitted that this transaction took place two month, prior to the Section 4 notification and is closely Parallel to the claimants case, and is the best instance in all respects for the purpose of determining the compensation. 27. The sale-deed Ex. 5 per square yard. 26. Coming to the transaction of Hoist-O-Mech-Ltd. in the second category Mr. Khambatta submitted that this transaction took place two month, prior to the Section 4 notification and is closely Parallel to the claimants case, and is the best instance in all respects for the purpose of determining the compensation. 27. The sale-deed Ex. 181 shows that there Was an agreement for sale dated January 7, 1965, between Hasmukh Lal and others and Hoist-O-Mech-Ltd., whereby the vendors had agreed to sell the property at the rate of Rs. 12-40 per sq. yard. The second schedule to Ex. 181 gives the boundaries Which when read with the map Ex. 124 shows that this property is served by an additional road apart from the 2nd Pokharan road. This sale is proved by witness Naraindas. His evidence shows that he had purchased 1,10,000 sq. yard at the Court auction at the rate of Rs. 1.50 per sq. Yard and he had sold a part of the land to Techni-Glass Ltd., in 1963 at the rate of Rs. 3.75 per sq. yard. As regards the sale to the Hoist-O-Mech-Ltd., he stated that land Was sold at a cost of Rs. 12-40 per sq. yard. The witness admitted that he bad Spent Rs. 5-15 per sq. yard for levelling the land. Therefore the price of the property is to be considered @ Rs. 7-25 per sq. yard and not Rs. 12.40 per square yard as evidenced by the sale-deed Ex. 181. The map Ex. 119 shows that this plot lies in the industrial Zone and as indicated above it is close to 2nd Pokharan Road apart from the advantage and service of another road to the east. This property has more advantages than the acquired land. It has a frontage of 2nd Pokharan Road. It is situated at a distance from the acquired land. The acquired lands are situated in lb. interior whereas this property is having frontage as well the below, of two roads. Having regard to the location, other features and advantage, in our opinion this instance is not comparable with the acquired lands. 28. This takes us to the third category of transactions namely (1) Survey No.2, Hissa No.5, by Smt. Kashibai Kashinath Mhatre to Wasudeo Sitaram Rajadhyakashya, at the rate of Rs. Having regard to the location, other features and advantage, in our opinion this instance is not comparable with the acquired lands. 28. This takes us to the third category of transactions namely (1) Survey No.2, Hissa No.5, by Smt. Kashibai Kashinath Mhatre to Wasudeo Sitaram Rajadhyakashya, at the rate of Rs. 15 per square yard under a saledeed dated 19-10-1966, pursuant to an agreement for sale dated 29-8-1965. (2) Survey No.2, Hissa No.1 by Sagunabai Hira Rama Mulundkar to Rajadhyakashya at the rate of Rs. 15 per square yard under a sale-deed dated 19-10-1966 pursuant to an agreement for sale dated 29-8-1965. (3) Survey No. 111 Hissa No.6 by Hira Rama Mulundkar to M/s Chandrakant Tapidas & Co. at the rate of Rs. 20 per square yard, under a sale-deed dated 26-11-1966, pursuant to an agreement for sale dated 29-8-1965. (4) Survey No. 112 Hissa No.7, by Sagunabai & Hira Rama Mulundkar to M/s Bharat Fertilizer Industries Ltd; at the rate of Rs. 10 per square yard under a sale-deed dated 7-8-1967, pursuant to an agreement for sale dated 2-12-1965. (5) Survey No. 112, Hissa No. 11, by Kashiba Kashinath Patil Mulundkar and Anandibai Devji Patil Mulundkar to M/s Bharat Fertiliser Industries Ltd., at the rate of Rs. 10 per square yard under the sale-deed dated 7-8-1967, pursuant to an agreement for sale dated 2-12-1965. (6) Survey No. 111, Hissa No. 10 by Bhaskar Jeevan Bhoir to M/s Bharat Fertiliser Industries Ltd., at the rate of Rs. 10 per square yard under a sale-deed dated 7-8-1967, pursuant to an agreement for sale dated 2-12-1965. (7) Survey No. 112 Hissa No.8 by Devji Dama Mulundkar to M Is' Bharat Fertiliser Industries Ltd., at the rate of Rs. 10 per square yard under a sale-deed dated 2-11-1967, pursuant to an agreement for sale dated 2-12-1965. Mr. Khambatta submitted that these instances though of post notification period should be considered as reflecting the market value. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader submitted that these instances are of very tiny areas and they are not comparable with the acquired lands. Mr. Khambatta submitted that these instances though of post notification period should be considered as reflecting the market value. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader submitted that these instances are of very tiny areas and they are not comparable with the acquired lands. The learned Government Pleader further urged that having regard to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Swarnasing v. State of Punjab6, it would not be unreasonable to ignore these instances because of the considerable gap of time of 18 months to 30 months between these sales and the sub-section (1) of section 4 of Notification. In this connection, the statement of law contained in the case of Chinda Vithal Sonwane v. Special Land Acquisition Officer7, requires to be borne in mind. This Court has also expressed its opinion earlier on the question of post-notification sales in the case of the Assistant Development Officer, Trombay v. Tayaballi Allibhoy Bohori8, which lays down that in estimating the market value of property compulsorily acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, it cannot be laid down as a general rule that post-notification transactions should necessarily be ignored altogether. All transactions are relevant which can fairly be said to afford a fair criterion of the value ;of the property as at the date of the notification. If any considerable interval has elapsed the Court will naturally attach little or no value to subsequent sales, just as transactions long prior to the notification will usually be discarded; but transactions only a month or two after the notification may sometimes perhaps have some value as evidence. It must largely depend on the purpose of the acquisition. If, for instance, lands have been acquired for the development of a locality and the improvement of its communications and amenities, it is a reasonable inference that the value of the property will increase, and the Court must consider that factor, even though it is not directly proved that the transactions in question have been affected by the notification. Direct proof would hardly even be available. 29. Direct proof would hardly even be available. 29. The same view was expressed by the Madras High Court in the case of M. S. O. S. P. V. Velavudam Chettier and others v. The Special Tahsildar for Land Acquisition, Madurai at Madurai Town9, wherein it is observed that the date of notification under section 4 (1) of the Act is important, as it fixes the material date for determining the market value of the land to be acquired. Therefore, a date of the sale to be relied upon ought to be of about this time, since if the sales took place several years ago, then they might not be the best valuable evidence. Sales after notification must be discarded when it is proved that the values have been affected one way or the other by circumstances which have arisen after that date, whether by reasons of the notification of the acquisition or otherwise. However, in determining the market value of land to be acquired by Government, post notification transactions should not necessarily be ignored altogether. All transactions must be relevant which can fairly be said to afford a fair criterion of the value of the property as on the date of the notification. If any considerable interval has elapsed, the Court will naturally attach little or no value to subsequent sales, just as transactions long prior to the notification will usually be discarded. Andhra Pradesh High Court also adopted the same view in the case of Land Acquisition Officer v Panchaliyya1o• Applying these principles to the facts of the present case, in view of the considerable interval (16 months to 30 months) between the date of notification and these sales, little value will have to be attached. It is also reasonable to infer that the value of the property must have arisen by reason of compulsory acquisition and this factor has also to be borne in mind, even though it is not directly proved that the sales have been affected by the notification. Even taking into consideration these post notification instances apart from having little value as indicated before we are of the opinion that they do not provide a proper guideline in fixing the compensation because these sales are In respect of very small pieces of land. Moreover, these transactions have not been proved by examining either the sellers or the purchasers. Even taking into consideration these post notification instances apart from having little value as indicated before we are of the opinion that they do not provide a proper guideline in fixing the compensation because these sales are In respect of very small pieces of land. Moreover, these transactions have not been proved by examining either the sellers or the purchasers. They were sought to be proved by witness Hira Rama Mulundkar. Mr. Khambatta very fairly did not lay much stress on these instances. This apart, Mr. Khambatta was unable to convince us by reference to the location and situation of these plots as to whether they are comparable with the acquired lands. In our view these post-notification instances do not assist us in determining the compensation. 30. This brings us to the last category consisting of sale of survey Nos. 139, 168, 169, 173, 194, 282, 284, 287, 304, 306, 307, 360 and 421 admeasuring 15 acres 37 gunthas by Sewa Mandai Trust to M/s Voltas Ltd. The price of Rs. 7-25 per sq. yard was fixed by Award dated 12-9-1967, Ex. 121 declared by Shri Kantilal T. Desai. Mr. Khambatta submitted that this price can be taken into consideration in arriving at the market value of the acquired lands. The parties had agreed to sell and purchase the said lands and merely left the question of price to be determined by an experienced retired Judge. Mr. Khambatta further submitted that before making the award the learned Arbitrator had fixed several meetings and heard advocate for M/s Voltas Ltd. and also done all things necessary to enable him to determine the price and therefore this sale instance represents the correct value. Mr. Khambatta further pointed out that the lands of Seva Mandal are comparable with the acquired lands and therefore the price fixed by the learned Arbitrator should be taken as between a Willing purchaser and a willing seller. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader, submitted that the value fixed by the learned Arbitrator is contrary to the concept of market value as understood in fixing compensation of compulsory acquisition, nor the learned Arbitrator was required to determine the market value. The learned Arbitrator has given no reason for fixing the price and the price fixed by him cannot take place of market value as required to be considered between a willing purchaser and a willing seller. The learned Arbitrator has given no reason for fixing the price and the price fixed by him cannot take place of market value as required to be considered between a willing purchaser and a willing seller. The claimants have also not led any evidence before the Court as to the circumstances in which the learned Arbitrator fixed the price of Rs. 7-25 per square yard. 31. It is necessary to note that the award Ex. 121 is based on an agreement of reference dated 25-10-1966. The lands referred to in the schedule to that agreement are not the subject matter of any acquisition proceedings. There is also on record another agreement of reference dated 26-10-1966, Ex. 154, the schedule whereof refers to lands which were the subject matter of notification No. LAO/SR 221 dated 19-5-1965, under section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The award, if any, on the basis of Ex. 154 is not on record. 32. There is considerable force in the submission of the learned Government Pleader that in the absence of any reason being given by the learned Arbitrator as to how he had arrived at the figure of Rs. 7-25 it is not possible for us to award compensation to the claimants at the rate of Rs. 7-25 per sq. yard. Now compensation for compulsory acquisition as governed by section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act gives high priority to the market value of the land as on the date of the publication of the notification under section 4 (1). The main criterion to determine the market value is what a willing purchaser would pay a willing seller and not what someone thinks ought to be the market value. One of the methods of valuation is the price paid for comparable property in the neighbourhood. The measure of value of the Ii land is its market value. The owner is entitled to the value of the land with its intrinsic qualities and also its potentialities and other possibilities depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The question before us is whether the price fixed by the learned Arbitrator represents the market value. Can the price fixed by the learned Arbitrator be said to be between a willing purchaser and a willing seller. The question before us is whether the price fixed by the learned Arbitrator represents the market value. Can the price fixed by the learned Arbitrator be said to be between a willing purchaser and a willing seller. In our view the price fixed by the learned Arbitrator cannot be said to be the market value as understood in the concept of market value viz. as between a willing purchaser and willing seller. There is no open and free bargaining between the parties in fixing the price. The element of bargaining power is surrendered when that matter is left to an Arbitrator. The process of the mind of an Arbitrator is not made known for an Arbitrator and is not required to give reasons for his award. An award of an Arbitrator is not a reasoned judicia decision. All that an Arbitrator is required to do is to declare his decision without supporting it by any evidence on record and he can even ignore to take notice of evidence brought on record by the parties. All that he is required to do is to give an intelligible award which determines the rights of the parties in terms of the agreement of reference. Consistent with this position the award in the present case does not disclose how the rate of Rs. 7-25 per sq. yard was arrived at. 33. Mr. Khambatta frankly stated that he has not been able to trace any decision to support the view that price fixed by an Arbirator in compulsory acquisition cases could be equated with market value. Mr. Khambatta emphasised that the parties to the reference had agreed to abide by the decision of the learned Arbitrator and therefore the price awarded should be taken as a price between a willing buyer and a willing seller. We have given our anxious consideration to the fact that the learned Arbitrator had wide and large experience and he must have taken all factors into consideration while fixing the price at Rs. 7·25 per sq. yard. But we cannot persuade ourselves to accept that price as basis of market value for fixing compensation, under the Land Acquisition Act in the absence of any reasons for the decision. It is to be noted that no attempt was made on behalf of the claimants to adduce any evidence in respect of this instance. 7·25 per sq. yard. But we cannot persuade ourselves to accept that price as basis of market value for fixing compensation, under the Land Acquisition Act in the absence of any reasons for the decision. It is to be noted that no attempt was made on behalf of the claimants to adduce any evidence in respect of this instance. There is no material on record which can legitimately guide us in determining the compensation on the basis of this instance except the decision of the learned Arbitrator that he had fixed the compensation after visiting the site taking evidence and hearing the solicitors and advocates for the parties and after taking into consideration all things necessary. In our opinion, it is unsafe to rely upon this instance. 34. Mr. Khambatta lastly urged that the Government has itself relied upon the last instance of sale between Seva Mandal Trust and Voltas Ltd. and therefore it is binding on the Government. On the other hand the learned Government Pleader pointed out that in the relevant column the rate of Rs. 7-25 per square yard it is clearly stated "not accepted by M/s Voltas." He submitted that the Opponents have not admitted the rate but a statement has been prepared on the basis of the judgment under appeal. Moreover in para 20 of the judgment it is stated that (Shri K. T. Desai Arbitrator decided on 12th September 1967 that the rate should be Rs. 7-25 per sq. yard, which is not agreed upon by Voltas Ltd.). The learned Government Pleader further pointed out that there is nothing on record to show that Voltas have accepted the a ward or paid the amount. Mr. Mevani the learned Advocate on record who also appeared for the claimants pointed out that the evidence of the claimants' architect Shri Pandit shows that the payment was made by Voltas. We cannot overlook Pandit's statement, "I do not know whether the rate fixed by the Arbitrator was paid by Voltas to the owner of the land". Moreover, Shri Pandit gave evidence on behalf of the claimants. He could not have personal knowledge about the alleged payment by Voltas. He was not competent to depose to these facts. Therefore, having regard to all those circumstances, it is not possible to accept Mr. Khambatta's submission, that the Government is liable to pay compensation @ Rs. 7·25 per sq. Moreover, Shri Pandit gave evidence on behalf of the claimants. He could not have personal knowledge about the alleged payment by Voltas. He was not competent to depose to these facts. Therefore, having regard to all those circumstances, it is not possible to accept Mr. Khambatta's submission, that the Government is liable to pay compensation @ Rs. 7·25 per sq. merely because reference to the present instance has been made in the list prepared by the office of the Government Pleader. 35. The learned Government Pleader urged that a judgment given in another Land Acquisition matter under the present notification and also the same award is relevant for determining the compensation. He pointed out that this Court in an unreported decision in P. A. No. 794 of 1968, decided on March ]7, 1977, to which my learned brother Vaidya J. was a party in respect of the present notification had considered the sale instance of survey Nos. 192/1, 193/2 and 193/3 of Village Majiwada. In that case Hoist-O-Mech-Ltd. had purchased the property at the rate of Rs. 12 per sq. yard. In that case, the Land Acquisition Officer had awarded also compensation at the rate of Rs. 4 per sq. yard and upon Reference under section 18, the lower Court had dismissed the reference. The claimants in that case came in appeal and the appeal was dismissed holding that there was no reason to interfere with the award as confirmed by the learned Civil Judge. In the State of Madras v. A. N. Nanjan and another11, it is observed that the awards given by the Collector are at least relevant material and may be in the nature of admission with regard to the value of the land on behalf of the State and if the land involved in the awards is comparable land in the reasonable proximity of the acquired land, the rates found in the said documents would be a reliable material to afford a basis to work upon for determination of the compensation on a later date. Therefore the compensation awarded to the claimants at the rate of Rs. 4 per sq. yard is fair and proper in view of the decision of this Court in F. A. No. 794 of 1968 since the compensation confirmed in that appeal also related to the present notification and the present award. 36. Therefore the compensation awarded to the claimants at the rate of Rs. 4 per sq. yard is fair and proper in view of the decision of this Court in F. A. No. 794 of 1968 since the compensation confirmed in that appeal also related to the present notification and the present award. 36. To sum up the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer is adequate and fair. The claimants have failed to establish before the lower Court and before us that the award made is not a fair award. Regarding the claimants' own purchase of the acquired lands they have not proved that the transactions were genuine in as much the consideration is not proved and an that is established is the factum of the transactions. Regarding the award of the learned Arbitrator Shri Kantilal T. Desai, the price awarded does not indicate a proper market value as between a willing seller and a willing buyer. We, therefore, think that it would be hazardous to rely upon the price a warded as the basis for granting enhanced compensation on the facts of the present case. None of the instances cited before us are found to be relevant as far as the fixation of compensation is concerned. 37. In the result, the appeal is dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed.