JUDGMENT 1. Two large parcels of land were placed under acquisition in pursuance to a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act published on June 6, 1957. The land comprised of final plots Nos. 178 and 181 of Kankaria town, Planning Scheme No. 2, Ahmedabad. The learned Judge of the City Civil Court on a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act being made to the court stepped up the market value of the land in question from Rs 12 and Rs 15 per square yard respectively to Rs 13.50 and Rs 17 per square yard respectively. The claimants were still not satisfied and approached the High Court by way of an appeal. The High Court stepped up the market value further to Rs 17 per square yard and Rs 21 per square yard respectively. Thereupon the State has approached this Court by way of the present appeal. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the High Court was not justified in proceeding on the assumption that the lands under acquisition were much superior in situation compared to the small parcels of land concerned in transactions reflected in Ex. 34 and Ex. 40, and in valuing the lands under acquisition by adding a 50 per cent rise to account for this factor. 3. It is no doubt true that there is no satisfactory evidence as regards extent of the superiority of the lands under acquisition visa-vis the lands concerned in the instances. The criticism levelled on the following counts has force : (1) The lands under acquisition do not have a regular shape. (2) Even if the large parcels of land were plotted out after providing for roads etc., all the smaller plots would not have fetched the same price (50 per cent higher than the lands under instances). Only a few plots having frontage on the Kankaria Road would have fetched a better price whereas the plots in the rear and interior would have fetched lower prices only. (3) The lands under instances were situated in the midst of highly developed locality near the vegetable market and had greater attraction. (4) There was no evidence of transactions which reflected any price differential in favour of the lands in the locality of the lands under acquisition as compared to the locality of the lands under instances. (3) The lands under instances were situated in the midst of highly developed locality near the vegetable market and had greater attraction. (4) There was no evidence of transactions which reflected any price differential in favour of the lands in the locality of the lands under acquisition as compared to the locality of the lands under instances. Much less to show that the lands would fetch 50 per cent more in value. There were no recorded transactions at any point of time in the past to support this conclusion. 4. But then it appears that the learned government pleader who appeared for the State, had in terms conceded that the lands under acquisition could be valued at 50 per cent more than lands under instances as is evident from the following passage extracted from the judgment of the High Court : It was not disputed by the learned government pleader that the situation of the acquired lands is comparatively better and that if the land conveyed under Ex. 40 was situated where the acquired lands are situated, it would have fetched a higher price. In fact, he submitted that a plot of land similar to size to that conveyed under Ex. 40, if it was situated where the acquired lands are situated, would fetch 11/2 times the price than what it actually fetched. In other words, he submitted that it would fetch 50 per cent higher price than what was realized under the transaction evidenced by Ex. 40. 5. The High Court has considered the statement made by the learned government pleader to be reasonable and fair and acting upon it has revised the market value of the land under acquisition upwards to the extent indicated earlier. Fourteen years have sped by and we do not consider it proper at this distance of time to remand the matter to the High Court to enable the respondent-claimant to adduce evidence on this point. Besides, a concession on a question of fact cannot be disregarded. 6. Under the circumstances we do not think that we would be justified in interfering with the order of the High Court. 7. The appeal fails and is dismissed. No costs. For Citation : (1987) 3 SCC 306 . Vikas Info Solutions Pvt. Ltd.