Judgment :- 1. These writ petitions have been filed by Sree Meenakshi Mills Ltd., Madurai against the Special Tribunal for Urban Land Tax Appeals, Madurai, and the Assistant Commissioner, Urban Land Tax, Madurai West, Madurai under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. W.P. No. 2380 of 1977 is for the issue of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order calling for the records of the first respondent relating to his order dated 12.11.1976 made in ULTA No. 381 of 1973 and quashing that order. W.P. No. 2381 of 1977 has been filed for the issue of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ of order calling for the records or the first respondent relating to his order dated 12.11.1976 made in ULTA No. 177 of 1974 and quashing that order. W.P. Nos. 2382 and 2383 of 1977 have been filed for the issue of writs of certiorari or any other writs or orders calling for the records of the first respondent relating to his orders dated 12.11.1976 made in ULTA Nos. 61 of 1975 and 417 Of 1973 respectively and quashing those orders. 2. The properties and parties involved in all the four writ petitions are the same. The petitioners are owners of S. Nos. 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024, 2025 and 2026 in Block No. 26; S. No. 2061 in Block No. 28, and S. Nos. 2062, 2064, 2141, 2187 and 2190 in Block No. 29. The total extent of these lands, which are all situate within the limits of Madurai Corporation, is 857 grounds 1756 sq. ft. These four writ petitions concern urban land tax relating to faslis 1381 to 1384. W.P. No. 2380 of 1977 relates to the order of assessment dated 31.5.1973 of the Assistant Commissioner of Urban Land Tax, the second respondent, for fasli 1381. W.P. No. 2381 of 1977 relates to the order of the second respondent dated 16.2.1974 for fasli 1982. In respect of faslis 1383 and 1384 there were demands for urban land tax on the basis of the assessment relating to fasli 1381. The petitioners filed Urban Land Tax Appeals Nos. 381 of 1973 and 177 of 1984 against the orders of assessment dated 31.5.1973 and 16.2.1974 respectively and Urban Land Tax Appeals Nos. In respect of faslis 1383 and 1384 there were demands for urban land tax on the basis of the assessment relating to fasli 1381. The petitioners filed Urban Land Tax Appeals Nos. 381 of 1973 and 177 of 1984 against the orders of assessment dated 31.5.1973 and 16.2.1974 respectively and Urban Land Tax Appeals Nos. 61 of 1975 and 417 of 1973, against the demand for faslis 1383 and 1384 respectively. 3. The petitioners submitted returns valuing the properties at a flat rate of Rs. 550/- per ground for urban land tax purposes. The second respondent fixed the value at Rs. 7200/- per ground in respect of 652 grounds 1250 Sq. ft. of land comprised in S. No. 2014 situate in Block No. 26. S. No. 2061 situate in Block No. 28 and S. Nos. 2141 and 2190 situate in Block No. 29. The total extent of S. No. 2061 situate in Block NO. 28, is 285 grounds 1128 S.q. ft. out of which 118 grounds 1915 Sq. ft. has been exempted from liability to urban land tax from fasli 1382 by G.O.Ms. No. 3526, Revenue, dated 15.6.1973. Therefore, the valuation of the entire extent of S. No. 2061 at Rs. 7200 is in respect of fasli 1381 and the valuation of the said land less exemption extent of 118 grounds 1915 Sq. ft. at that amount is for the subsequent faslis. The second respondent valued S. Nos. 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2021, 2024, 2025 and 2026 situate in Block No. 26, and S. Nos. 2062, 2064 and 2187 situate in Block No. 29 at Rs. 5400 per ground. Out of the entire 14 grounds 1370 Sq. ft. comprised in S. No. 2015 situate in Block No. 26, an extent of 12 grounds 1370 sq. ft. has been exempted from liability to urban land tax by the said G.O.Ms. No. 3526, Revenue, dated 15.6.1973. The entire extent of 8 grounds 401 sq. ft. 42 grounds 2089 Sq. ft. and 19 grounds 15 sq. ft. comprised in S. Nos. comprised in S. No. 2015 situate in Block No. 26, an extent of 12 grounds 1370 sq. ft. has been exempted from liability to urban land tax by the said G.O.Ms. No. 3526, Revenue, dated 15.6.1973. The entire extent of 8 grounds 401 sq. ft. 42 grounds 2089 Sq. ft. and 19 grounds 15 sq. ft. comprised in S. Nos. 2019, 2020 and 2187 respectively have been exempted from liability to urban land tax under Sec. 2(13) of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land Tax Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), which defines ‘urban land’ as meaning “any land which is used or is capable of being used as a building-site and includes garden or grounds if any, appurtenant to a building but does not include any land which is registered as wet in the revenue accounts of the Government and used for the cultivation of wet crops”. So, we are not concerned in these writ petitions with S. Nos. 2019, 2020 and 2187, and it is necessary to consider whether, having regard to the fact that 118 grounds 1915 Sq. ft. out of the extent comprised in S. No. 2061 and 12 grounds 1370 Sq. ft. out of the extent comprised in S. No. 2015 have been exempted from liability to urban land tax from fasli 1382 under the said G.O.Ms. No. 3526, Revenue, dated 15.6.1973, these extents of lands could be considered as “Urban land” which, as already stated, means any land which is used or is capable of being used as a building-site and includes garden or grounds if any, appurtenant to a building for the e arlier fasli 1381 and whether a lesser valuation has to be adopted on the ground that it must have been such a land even in that fasli. 4. G.O.Ms. 4. G.O.Ms. No. 3526, Revenue, dated 15th June 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Government order) reads thus:— “In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of S. 27 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land Tax Act, 1965 (Tamil Nadu Act 12 of 1966) the Governor of Tamil Nadu hereby exempts the urban lands which are: a) registered as wet and which were under cultivation of dry crops for five fasli years prior to the dates of coming into force of the said Act in the City of Madras, city of Madurai and the Municipal Towns of Coimbatore, Salem and Tiruchirapalli and which continue to be under cultivation as per revenue accounts; and b) registered as dry and which were under cultivation of wet or dry crops for five fasli years prior to the dates of coming into force of the said Act in the city of Madras, City of Madurai and the Municipal Towns of Coimbatore, Salem and Tiruchirapalli and which continue to be under cultivation as per revenue accounts, from payment of the urban land tax retrospectively on and from the 1st July, 1972.” 5. The second respondent fixed the market value of the lands mentioned in column (4) of the Annexure to his order, as mentioned in column (7) of the Annexure, and assessed the lands urban land tax of Rs. 58,062-60. In the appeals disposed of by a common order dated 12.4.1976, the first respondent fixed the market value of S. No. 2014 at Rs. 6,000/- per ground, S. Nos. 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2021, 2024, 2025, 2026, 2064 at Rs. 4,800/-, S. No. 2190 at Rs. 7,200/- per ground agreeing with the second respondent, and S. No. 2018 at Rs. 5,400 per ground agreeing with the respondent and ordered thus: “In the result L.T.A. No. 381 of 1973 is partly allowed by fixing market value at Rs. 6,000/- per ground for T.S. No. 2014, and for 166 grounds 1610 Sq. ft. in T.S. No. 2061 (except the portion in that T.S. No. for which exemption has not been granted by the Assistant Commissioner for fasli 1382 by his revised order dated 29.4.1974 i.e. excluding the portion of 118 grounds 1918 Sq. ft. in that T.S. No. for which exemption has been granted by the Assistant Commissioner by his revised order dated 29.4.1974 at Rs. 4,800 per ground for T.S. Nos. ft. in that T.S. No. for which exemption has been granted by the Assistant Commissioner by his revised order dated 29.4.1974 at Rs. 4,800 per ground for T.S. Nos. 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2021, 2024, 2025, 2026, 2062, 2064, and the portion of 118 grounds 1918 Sq. ft. in T.S. No. 2061 which exemption has been granted by the Assistant Commissioner for fasli 1382 as per his revised order dated 29.4.1974. The rates fixed for T.S. No. 2190 and 2141 are confirmed. The appellant is liable to pay urban land tax at the abovesaid rates.” 6. The second respondent while allowing ULTA 381 of 1973 set aside the order in respect of T.S. Nos. 2187, 2019 and 2020 for fasli 1381 as revised by the second respondent himself by his revised order dated 29.4.1974. He set aside the assessment order in respect of T.S. Nos. 2187, 2019 and 2020 by allowing ULTA 417 of 1973 in part in view of the revision of the assessment order by the second respondent himself by his order dated 29.4.1974, and rejected the claim for exemption for the rest of the items for fasli 1381. He set aside the assessment orders in respect of T.S. Nos. 2187, 2019, 2020 an extent of 12 grounds 1370 Sq. ft. in T.S. No. 2061 by allowing ULTA No. 177 of 1974 in part and held that the petitioners are liable to pay urban land tax for the rest of the items at the rate fixed by him, He set aside the assessment order in respect of T.S. No. 2141 in view of his order in ULTA Nos. 61 and 62 of 1975 and held that the petitioners are liable to pay urban land tax for the rest of the items at the rate fixed by him as mentioned above. 7. These writ petitions have been filed for the issue of writs of certiorari as mentioned above. 8. In the affidavit filed in these writ petitions, what are stated as grounds are these:— 9. The lands constitute a huge block of about 47 acres and have only a small frontage on the Madurai-Tirupparankundram Road, are bounded on two other sides by railway lines, one of them the Madurai-Theni Line and the other, the Madurai-Virudhunagar Line. 8. In the affidavit filed in these writ petitions, what are stated as grounds are these:— 9. The lands constitute a huge block of about 47 acres and have only a small frontage on the Madurai-Tirupparankundram Road, are bounded on two other sides by railway lines, one of them the Madurai-Theni Line and the other, the Madurai-Virudhunagar Line. The land is in a low lying area and in most places it is about 4 to 7 feet lower in level than the Madurai-Tirupparankundram Highway, and it has no access on the northern side where there are a railway line and paddy fields for a length of about 2,000 feet east to west, and on the southern side a railway line runs for about 1500 feet, and a railway overbridge has been constructed south of the property cutting off direct access from the property, to the main road. 10. The second respondent fixed the value of some lands at Rs. 7,200 and some other lands at Rs. 6,000 per ground as on 1.7.1971 relying on a sale deed dated 10.12.1970 which is in respect of 8 cents of land situate in Block No. 30 for a consideration of Rs. 8,000/-, working out to Rs. 5,496 per ground, ignoring the fact that none of the lands belonging to the petitioners is situate in Block No. 30, and also the fact that the sale deed relates to a very small extent of land, whereas we are concerned in these writ petitions with large extents of 857 grounds 1745 Sq. ft. The first respondent who modified the valuation made by the second respondent slightly in favour of the petitioners, in the appeals, failed to see that the two data sale deeds considered by the second respondent related to lands situate in Block No. 29, where the bulk of the properties belonging to the petitioners are situate, and that the considerations mentioned in those two sale deeds worked out only to Rs. 3,096 and Rs. 2,750 respectively per ground. The reason given by the second respondent for rejecting those two sale deeds, viz. that they do not reflect the true market value of the urban land tax in the area is not borne out by anything on record. 3,096 and Rs. 2,750 respectively per ground. The reason given by the second respondent for rejecting those two sale deeds, viz. that they do not reflect the true market value of the urban land tax in the area is not borne out by anything on record. Those sales were in August and September 1970 and in respect of a little over one ground of land in one case and a little less than one ground in the other, and the second respondent did not give any reason as to why he fixed the valuation of the land in question even higher than what is disclosed by the sale deed dated 10.12.1970. 11. The first respondent has stated in his judgment after referring to the vastness of the petitioners land that he is inclined to hold that Rs. 6000/- will reflect the correct market value of the land in T.S. No. 2014, and has ignored the evidence brought on record by the second respondent, which is prejudicial to the department. Therefore, that conclusion of the first respondent is contrary to the basic principles of law are unsustainable. 12. In respect of 118 grounds 1918 sq. ft. of land forming part of T.S. No. 2061, it has been exempted from liability to urban land tax under the Government Order. The first respondent was not justified in fixing the market value at Rs. 4,800 per ground. If that extent of land is exempt from liability to urban land tax by virtue of the Government Order, in the later fasli years because it is an ‘agricultural land,’ it could not be treated as ‘urban land’ for the purposes of valuation in the earlier fasli 1 381 and could not be valued at nearly Rs. 86,400 per acre. Similar is the case with regard to 14 grounds 1730 sq. ft. of land comprised in T.S. No. 2015 which also has been exempt from liability to urban land tax under the Government Order. 13. The first respondent has acted contrary to law in fixing the market value of T.S. Nos. 2016, 2017 and 2018 at Rs. 4,800 per ground after having observed in his order that those lands are adjacent to the Madurai-Bodi railway line and the only road giving access to the property is situate far away from the lands. 14. The first respondent’ order fixing the market value in respect of T.S. Nos. 2016, 2017 and 2018 at Rs. 4,800 per ground after having observed in his order that those lands are adjacent to the Madurai-Bodi railway line and the only road giving access to the property is situate far away from the lands. 14. The first respondent’ order fixing the market value in respect of T.S. Nos. 2021, 2024, 2025, 2026, 2062 and 2064, is also contrary to law as it ignores the obvious features noticed by the first respondent himself. 15. In confirming the market value fixed for T.S. No. 2111 the first respondent has relied on a sale deed dated 27.11.1972 contrary to law and in confirming the market value of T.S. No. 2190 he failed to see that the land was shown to be “Mouna Guruswamy Madam” and as such was res extra commercium , and he should not have fixed the market value for the item, or at least should have fixed a nominal value for the same. 16. The first respondent has fixed the market value of T.S. No. 2018 at Rs. 5,400/- per ground after having dealt that land along with T.S. Nos. 2016 and 2017 in the earlier paragraphs of his order and fixed the market value at Rs. 4,800/-. 17. In the counter-affidavit filed in those writ petitions it is contended that the second respondent determined the market value of the lands after carefully considering the data relating to comparable lands and that the first respondent market value for the lands after taking pains to inspect the lands. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that it is impossible to get at a data land of an extent similar to the extent of the land belonging to the petitioner which runs to hundreds of grounds, and it is to also impracticable to lay hands on a sale of data land which took place on the crucial date, 1.7.1971, the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land Tax have been extended to Madurai City by G.O.Ms. No. 4102 Revenue, dated 21.12.1971 and S. 2(5) of the Act saying that the date of commencement of the Act means, in relation to the city of Madras, the first day of the July 1963, and in relation to any other Municipal town or township or area, the first day of July of the fasli year in which the notification under clause (b) of sub-section (2) of S. 1 is published. It is finally stated in the counter-affidavit that even the petitioners have not produced any sale deed relating to a land which may be considered perfectly comparable to the lands belonging to the petitioners, and that the question raised in the writ petitions is more in the realm of fact than of law and is not one eminently fit for invoking the writ jurisdiction of this court. 18. The learned Advocate for the Government did not advance any argument on the question of jurisdiction of this Court raised in paragraph 3 of the counter-affidavit, where it is stated: “..this is a matter more in the realm of fact than in law and therefore not eminently fit for invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Honble Court.” Therefore, it is not necessary to consider whether these writ petitions are not maintainable. 19. Regarding the location of the petitioners lands, the second respondent has stated thus in his order: “This part of the city is styled as “Meenakshi Mills” area. This has recently been surveyed under the Town Survey System and formed as separate blocks of 26, 28, 29 and 30 and included in Survey Ward IV. It is bounded by block 27 consisting of wet fields on the north and Madurai College (Block 24) area and Venkatachalapuram area (Block 31) on the east and by Madakkulam village limits on the south and west. The blocks 26 and 28 lie in between the Madurai-Bodi Railway line and Madurai-Virudhunagar Railway line, while the blocks 29 and 30 lie south of Madurai-Virudunagar railway line. This area consists of tiled and terraced houses with a good number of vacant plots. Madurai-Tiruparamkundram road also runs in this area abutting the blocks 28 and 29. This area is inhabited mostly by the Mill Workers, in view of the location of Meenakshi Mills in Block 26. Lighting has been provided. Drinking water is made available through Corporation lorries. Open drainage system alone is in existence in this area. Madurai-Tiruparamkundram road also runs in this area abutting the blocks 28 and 29. This area is inhabited mostly by the Mill Workers, in view of the location of Meenakshi Mills in Block 26. Lighting has been provided. Drinking water is made available through Corporation lorries. Open drainage system alone is in existence in this area. Places of public worship are situated at a distance of 6 to 7 furlongs. The Central Bus Stand and the Madurai Railway Junction are at a distance of about a mile from the area. Educational institutions are located in the nearby blocks at a distance of 2 to 4 furlongs. City buses do not ply at present on Madurai-T.P.K (Tiruparakundram), road due to construction of an over-bridge across Madurai-Virudunagar Railway line near Meenakshi Mills. This is purely a labour cum middle class residental area. The learned counsel for the petitioners has not taken any exception to this description of the property of the petitioners by the second respondent except saying that no part of their lands is in Block No. 30. A perusal of the Annexure to the second respondents order justifies this statement of the learned counsel for the petitioners for it does not show that any of their lands is situate on Block No. 30. 20. The second respondent has considered four sale deeds dated 22.8.1970, 26.9.1970, 10.12.1970 and 23.7.1970 which are all within fasli three years prior to the relevant date 1.7.1971. The sale deed dated 10.12.1970 relates to 1 ground 84 Sq. ft. of land situate in Block No. 30 and is for consideration of Rs. 8000, working out to Rs. 2.29 per sq. ft. and Rs. 5,496/- per ground. The sale deed dated 23.7.1970 is in respect of 48 sq. ft. of land situate in Block No. 31 for a consideration of Rs. 100 working out to Rs. 2.07 per Sq. ft. and Rs. 4,988 per ground. The other two sale deeds dated 22.8.1970 and 26.9.1970 are in respect of one ground 429 Sq. ft. and 2180 sq. ft. respectively situate in Block No. 29 and are for a consideration Rs. 3640 and Rs. 2500 respectively, working out to Rs. 1.29 per Sq. ft. and Rs. 3096 per ground and Rs. 1.15 per sq. ft. and Rs. 2750 per ground respectively. The sale deeds dated 10.12.1970 and 23.7.1970 relating to bits of lands in Block Nos. ft. respectively situate in Block No. 29 and are for a consideration Rs. 3640 and Rs. 2500 respectively, working out to Rs. 1.29 per Sq. ft. and Rs. 3096 per ground and Rs. 1.15 per sq. ft. and Rs. 2750 per ground respectively. The sale deeds dated 10.12.1970 and 23.7.1970 relating to bits of lands in Block Nos. 30 and 31 constitute items 3 an d 4 whereas the sale deeds dated 22.8.1970 and 26.9.1970 in respect of bits of lands in Block No. 29 constitute items 1 and 2 of the data considered by the second respondent. The second respondent has stated in his order thus:— “The sales of vacant sites covered by item Nos. 1 and 2 have fetched a rate of Rs. 1.29 per Sq. ft. and Rs. 1.15 per sq. ft. respectively and they do not reflect the true market value of the urban lands in the area. Hence they are discarded. The sale in item 4 is a sale of vacant site situate in Block 31 in the adjacent locality and it has fetched rate of Rs. 2.07 per Sq. ft. of Rs. 4968 per ground. This sale also (is) discarded. The sale in item 3 is sale of vacant site in Block 30 included in the area of assessment and it has fetched Rs. 2.29 per sq. ft. or Rs. 5496 per ground which in my view, reflects the true market value of the urban lands in the area. On the basis of the above sale it is considered that the urban lands situated interior to the main road and abutting T.P.K. (Tirupparankundram) Road would have fetched Rs. 5400 per ground and Rs. 7200/- per ground respectively if sold in the open market as on 1.7..” 21. It is on this basis that the second respondent fixed the market value of some of the lands at Rs. 5400 and of some other lands at Rs. 7200 per ground as stated above. The first respondents made some minor adjustments in the value of the lands and fixed the market value as stated earlier in respect of the various items of lands belonging to the petitioners. 22. Mr. 5400 and of some other lands at Rs. 7200 per ground as stated above. The first respondents made some minor adjustments in the value of the lands and fixed the market value as stated earlier in respect of the various items of lands belonging to the petitioners. 22. Mr. S. Gopalaratnam, the learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that since none of the lands belonging to the petitioners are situate in Block No. 30, the second respondent should not have taken into consideration the sale deed dated 10.12.1970 in which the consideration stated works out to Rs. 2.29 per sq. ft. and Rs. 5496 per ground, as that land is situate in Block No. 30. This is not disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents. Since no part of the lands belonging to the petitioners is in Block No. 30, I agree with the learned counsel for the petitioners and hold that the Tribunals below erred in taking that sale transaction into consideration for fixing the market value of some of the lands belonging to the petitioners. 23. The learned counsel for the petitioners is submitted that the second respondent has not given any reason whatsoever for rejecting the sale deeds dated 22.8.1970 and 26.9.1970 apart from saying that they do not reflect the true market value of the lands in that area. Since no reasons have been given for holding that the considerations mentioned in the sale deeds do not reflect the true market value of lands in that area, it is not possible to uphold the view of the second respondent that they do not reflect the true market value of the urban lands in that area and that the documents should therefore be discarded. It is seen from paragraph 2 of the second respondents order that there were several sales including sales of sites with structure in and around the blocks that has taken place during the period of three years preceding 1.7.1971 and that the second respondent has ignored the sales which were for a consideration of Re. 1/- or less per sq. ft. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the second respondent was not justified in not taking into account sales which were for consideration of less than Re. 1 per sq. ft. which have taken place within a period of three years prior to the relevant date 1.7.1971. 1/- or less per sq. ft. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the second respondent was not justified in not taking into account sales which were for consideration of less than Re. 1 per sq. ft. which have taken place within a period of three years prior to the relevant date 1.7.1971. He submitted that the best method of ascertaining the market value of the lands would be to strike an average of the considerations for the sale which had taken place within three years prior to 1.7.1971 viz., Re. 1 per sq. ft., Rs. 1.15 per sq. ft. and Rs. 1.29 per sq. ft., and take the average of Rs. 1.15 per sq. ft. as the flat market value, and make a 25 per cent allowance having regard to the fact that those sales were in respect of small extent of lands and could not afford a reasonable basis for fixing the market value of the petitioners lands, which are of an extent of 857 grounds 1745 sq. ft. In support of his contention, he relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Collector of Lakshmipur v. B.C. Dutta ( AIR 1971 S.C. 2015 ), which arose out of proceedings taken under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. In that case, the respondent before Their Lordships or the Supreme Court relied largely on four sale deeds Exhibits 1, 2, 3 and 4 and Their Lordships of the Supreme Court have observed:— “By Exhibit 1 a plot of land measuring 1 katha, 7 lechas in the vicinity of the land which had been Acquired was sold on February 10, 1962 for Rs. 3,888. By Exhibit 2 an area of 1 katha was sola for Rs. 2,880 on January 5, 1962. By Exhibit 3 an area of 2 kathas was sold for Rs. 5,472 on March 21, 1963. By Exhibit 4 an area of 2 kathas 13.7.96 lachas was sold on July 26, 1962 for Rs. 1OO. The High Court was of the view that the market price of the land which had been acquired should be assessed on the ba sis of these four sale deeds, the average price of which came to about Rs. 15,000 per Bhiga. 1OO. The High Court was of the view that the market price of the land which had been acquired should be assessed on the ba sis of these four sale deeds, the average price of which came to about Rs. 15,000 per Bhiga. The District Judge had rejected these sale deeds and had based his decision mainly on a sale deed Exhibit-L by which the respondent had himself sold a piece of the land which was the subject matter of acquisition. The land had been sold on April 7, 1962 and its area was 1 Bigha and it was sold for Rs. 5,000. The respondent gave evidence that the land covered by the sale deed had been the subject matter of litigation with his brother and it was for that reason that the price got depressed and he sold that piece of land for inadequate consideration. The High Court was inclined to accept the evidence of the respondent relating to the circumstances in which the sale of 1 bhigha for Rs. 5,000 was effected. The evidene which had been produced on behalf of the Collector related to the early part of the year 1960 and could hardly be regarded as relevant. In our opinion the High Court overlooked the fact that the plots which were the subject matter of the sale deeds Exhibits 1 and 4 were comparatively of small areas and it is well known that when a large area like the one which was the subject matter of acquisition has to be sold it cannot possibly fetch a price at the same rate at which small plots can be sold. It is significant that the respondent himself had originally claimed, before the Collector, compensation at the rate of Rs. 10,000 per bigha. We see no reason for the High Court awarding compensation at a rate higher than Rs. 10.000 which would also be consistent with the evidence furnished by the four sale deeds. Although the average price of these sales came to Rs. 15,000 per bigha but when it is considered as has already been observed, that they were of comparatively much small area they would constitute good evidence for fixing the rate at a figure which was originally claimed by the respondent, namely Rs. 10,000 per Bigha. Although the average price of these sales came to Rs. 15,000 per bigha but when it is considered as has already been observed, that they were of comparatively much small area they would constitute good evidence for fixing the rate at a figure which was originally claimed by the respondent, namely Rs. 10,000 per Bigha. In other words, if the plots covered by the sale had been sold in larger parcels at the prices likely to be fetched would not have exceeded Rs. 10,000 per Bigha” After seeing this decision, the learned advocate for the respondents submitted that a deduction of 25 per cent of the average of Rs. 1.15 per sq. ft. is too much and that it will be proper to reduce only 10 per cent. Having regard to the above decision of the Supreme Court and the fact that the sales during the relevant period at Rs. 1, Rs. 1.15 and Rs. 1.29 per sq. ft. Which work out an average of Rs. 1.15 per sq. ft. were in respect of small bits of lands, where as we are concerned in these writ petitions with an extent of 857 grounds 1745 sq. ft. of lands, I am of the opinion that the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that a deduction of 25 per cent should be allowed and that the market value may be fixed at that rate uniformly regarding the lands for which exemption has been granted by the Government order, is reasonable. I agree with the learned counsel for the petitioners and fix the market value at Rs. 0.87 per Sq. ft. viz. Rs. 2,070 per ground in respect of the entire area expect 118 grounds 1915 sq. ft. in S. No. 2061 and 12 grounds 1370 sq. ft. in S. No. 2015. These extents have been exempt from liability to urban land tax by the Government Order from Fasli 1382. According to the Government Order, an extent could qualify for exemption only if it is registered as a wet land and was under the cultivation of dry crops for five fasli years prior to the commencement of the Act, and if it had been registered as dry, it was under cultivation of wet or dry crops for five fasli years prior to the dates of the commencement of the Act and continue to be under cultivation as per revenue accounts. Therefore, it could not be disputed that these extents must have been either wet lands on which dry crops had been raised even in fasli 1381 or dry lands on which wet or dry crops had been raised in that fasli and that they could not be valued at the same rate as the other lands. Making an allowance in this regard, I fix the market value of the said extents of 118 grounds 1915 sq. ft. in S. No. 2061 and 12 grounds 1370 sq. ft. in S. No. 2015, with reference to fasli 1381 and 1382 at Rs. 1800 per ground. The writ petitions are allowed accordingly and the assessement for fasli 1381 and the demand for faslis 1383 and 1384 will be modified by the respondents accordingly. 24. The learned Advocate for the respondents submitted that these are not fit cases where costs should be awarded. But the learned counsel for the petitioners pressed for costs. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, namely that the second respondent has ignored that many transactions of sale which were for consideration in the region of Re. 1, Rs. 1.15 and Rs. 1.29 per sq. ft. and had clutched at only one sale deed which related to a properly situate in Block No. 30 and fixed the market value at a high rate of Rs. 7,200 and Rs. 5,400 per ground. Even the first respondent has not modified the market value in favour of the petitioners properly and they were obliged to go to this Court and file these writ petitions. For the reasons mentioned by the learned counsel for the petitioners, I am of the opinion that some costs have to be awarded to the petitioners in all these writ petitions. The respondens shall pay the petitioners costs in this writ petitions. Advocates fee Rs. 1.500, one set.