By Court. These five appeals arising out of land acquisition cases have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. About 22.96 acres of land were acquired vide Declaration No. 39/G-70 L.A. 2, dated 20th September, 1969 for the Anugrah Memorial College, Gaya, The lands are situate in Mauza Katari, Thana No. 182 within the Gaya Municipality. The Collector fixed the compensation at Rs. 10,170/- per acre for the acquired lands. The persons, whose lands were acquired objected to the rate fixed by the Collector and the cases were referred to the Land Acquisition Judge under section 18 of Land Acquisition Act. Before the court, evidence was led on behalf of the State of Bihar as also the applicants, namely, those whose lands have been acquired. Some sale deeds were also tendered into evidence and the applicants (respondents) also filed certified copies of two judgments which were admitted into evidence. On consideration of the evidence on record, the learned 5th Additional District Judge fixed the value of the lands at Rs. 1,650/- per Katha which comes to roughly about Rs. 54,450/- per acre. He also allowed 10 per cent on the above amount on account of potential value of the lands and further held that the applicants were entitled to 13 per cent. On the total amount so calculated on account of compensatory nature of the acquisition The applicants were also held to be entitled to interest at Rs. 6/- per annum on the total amount of compensation less already paid or deposited from the date of taking possession. 3 The State of Bihar has filed these appeals and has challenged the valuation fixed by the learned 5th Additional District Judge. In First Appeal No. 576 of 1975, a cross objection has been filed by the applicants respondents, which has been valued at Rs. 20,000. 4. It is relevant to state here that the lands under acquisition are in close proximity of the Anugarh Colony of Gaya town and the Circuit House and other important areas of the town. While fixing the valuation the Collector seems to have taken into consideration the three sale deeds, One dated 15.11.67 showing the sale rate at Rs. 500/- per Katha, another dated 17.5.63 showing sale rate at Rs. 150/- per Katha and yet another sale deed dated 4.8.70 showing sale rate at Rs 700/- per katha. While fixing the valuation the Collector seems to have taken into consideration the three sale deeds, One dated 15.11.67 showing the sale rate at Rs. 500/- per Katha, another dated 17.5.63 showing sale rate at Rs. 150/- per Katha and yet another sale deed dated 4.8.70 showing sale rate at Rs 700/- per katha. According to the Collector prior to this acquisition, the lands were utilized for growing vegetables. On the other hand, the applicants respondents claimed that the valuation of the acquired lands be fixed at Rs. 4,000/- per katha. They also claimed damage at the rate of Rs. 500/- per acre on account of standing crops and claimed a sum of Rs. 800/ per decimal compensation for potential value of the lands. At the time of hearing, the applicants-respondent did not press their claim for damage with regard to the standing crops. 5. While raising the valuation of the acquired lands, the learned 5th Additional District Judge seems to have been impressed by two judgments of the District Judge, Gaya, One passed on 14.10.74 and the other on 16.8.75. It appears that some more lands in the vicinity had been acquired under the same scheme. By his judgment dated 14.10.74, the District Judge of Gaya in Land Acquisition Case No. 282 of 1971 fixed the rate of Rs 1,650/- per Katha as compensation vide Ext. 1. In that case also, the applicants had claimed a sum of Rs. 4.000/- per katha as compensation. By another judgment, dated 18.8.75, the learned District Judge of Gaya accepted the value at Rs. 1,650/- per katha as compensation vide Ext. 4 In this case also, similar hands were acquired for the same scheme. 6. Mr. Shukla, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant State of Bihar submitted that the judgments of the two previous cases could not form the basis for fixing the valuation of the lands for the purpose of payment of compensation in the present case. His submission is that these judgments are not inter-party and, therefore, not admissible in evidence. Learned counsel contended that the Judgment in a land acquisition case is a judgment in persons and not a judgment in rem. His submission is that these judgments are not inter-party and, therefore, not admissible in evidence. Learned counsel contended that the Judgment in a land acquisition case is a judgment in persons and not a judgment in rem. Section 48 of the Evidence Act provides that judgments, orders or decrees other than those mentioned in sections 40, 41 and 42 arc irrelevant unless the existence of such judgment, order or decree, is a fact in issue or is relevant under some other provision of the Evidence Act. Section 11 provides that facts not otherwise relevant are relevant fact highly probable or improbable. The existence of a judgment is a relevant fact. In City Improvement Trust, Bangalore V. N. Narayansingh, it was observed as follows- “We do not think it necessary to take so restrictive a view of the provisions of Sections 11 and 13 of the Evidence Act as to exclude such judgments altogether from evidence even when good grounds are made out for their admission.” 7. From the two judgments (Exts. 1 and 4) of the District Judge mentioned above. It would appear that there are materials to show that the lands acquired in both the cases and the present are similarly situate. It is also apparent from the two judgments, referred to above, that the lands in those cases were also acquired for the same scheme. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that Exhibits 1 and 4 cannot be used for the purpose of deciding the valuation in the present case. In Daisy and another v. The State of Kerala, it was held that in fixing compensation for plots acquired, the market price fixed in respect of a contiguous plot recently acquired can be taken into consideration and compensation fixed after comparing relative situation and importance of the plots. In the present case, the lands have been acquired for a collage. In the two cases (Exts P and 4), mentioned above, also the lands were acquired for the very same scheme. It is apparent that the lands under acquisition. In this case as also the other two cases mentioned above are not only contiguous to form a continuous block with all similar advantages, but also similarly situated. That being so, it cannot be said that the learned 5th Additional District Judge was wrong in fixing valuation at the rate of Rs. 1.650/- per Katha. In this case as also the other two cases mentioned above are not only contiguous to form a continuous block with all similar advantages, but also similarly situated. That being so, it cannot be said that the learned 5th Additional District Judge was wrong in fixing valuation at the rate of Rs. 1.650/- per Katha. In fact, it was most relevant materials before him for coming to a definite conclusion. 8. Mr. Awadh Kishore Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the respondents in First Appeal No. 576 of 1975 in support of the cross-objection contended that the learned court below has erred in fixing such a low valuation of the lands in question. According to him, the valuation should have been fixed at Rs. 4, 600/- per katha. Learned counsel has relied upon Exts. 2 and 3 in this connection. Under Ext. 2. one katha of land has been sold for a sum of 4. 000/- some time in 1969. Another area of 10 Dhurs of land was sold for Rs. 1.900/- On 17.5.69 under Ext. 3. These two sale deeds were immediately prior to the acquisition of the lands in the present case. It is well established that in determining compensation, the valuation fetched for smaller plot of land cannot be applied to lands covering a very large area. The larger area of land cannot possibly fetch the price at the same rate at which smaller plots are sold. Reference may be made in this connection, to the decision of the Supreme Court in the Collector of Lakhimpur v. Bhuban Chandra Duttu. In the present case, a larger chunk of over 22 acres of lands were acquired. The declaration was made in September, 1969. the two sale-deeds (Exts 2 and 3) are of a period immediately prior to the declaration under the Land Acquisition Act for the acquisition of the lands in the present case. It cannot absolutely be ruled out that these two sale-deeds might have been brought about on account of the impending acquisition of the lands in question. Although there is no material on the record, but it appears that the letter for acquisition of the lands had been sent to the Collector by the Anugrah Memorial College on 2.1.69 Be that as it may, the valuation of the lands could not have been fixed at Rs 4.000/- per katha as the two sale-deeds (Exts. Although there is no material on the record, but it appears that the letter for acquisition of the lands had been sent to the Collector by the Anugrah Memorial College on 2.1.69 Be that as it may, the valuation of the lands could not have been fixed at Rs 4.000/- per katha as the two sale-deeds (Exts. 2 and 3) relate to very smal1 areas of land. On the other hand, the three sale-deeds were filed on behalf of the Collector. At least one of them is of 15.11.67, only two years prior to the date of acquisition. Under that sale-deed, the land was sold for Rs. 500/- per katha. Even the average of the two sale-deeds (Exts. 2 and 3) and the sale-deed dated 15.11.67 filed on behalf of the Collector comes to about Rs. 2, 700/- per katha. The respondents in First Appeal No. 576 of 1975 have themselves valued the Cross-Objection at Rs 2. 300/- per katha. Having themselves reduced the valuation to Rs. 2, 200/- per katha in the cross-objection, it cannot now be argued that the lands should have been valued at Rs. 4, 000/- per katha. 9. In the facts and circumstances, mentioned above we do not find any justification for raising the valuation of the acquired lands which has been fixed by the court below. 10. In the result the appeals are dismissed but without costs, and the Cross-Objection in First Appeal No. 576 of 1975 is also dismissed, but without costs. Appeal dismissed.