JUDGMENT : G.T. Nanavati, J. In this reference made under section 64(1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following four questions to this court for its opinion : "(1) Whether the Tribunal was right in law in putting the valuation of big plots of land in Survey Nos. 39, 72, 74, 75, 76 and 77 measuring about 59,000 sq. yards on the basis of the value of a small plot of 1,000 sq. yards ? (2) Whether the Tribunal was right in law in rejecting the contention of the accountable person that as the property in question was on August 8, 1968, owned by as many as five co-owners the market value should be fixed at a reduced margin of 22 to 25 per cent. of the actual market value ? (3) Whether the Tribunal was right in law in fixing the value of the land in question at Rs. 1.50 per sq. yard on the basis of the highest value of four lands situate right on Ashram Road, in spite of its finding that the land in dispute was not right at Ashram Road but somewhat removed from that road ? (4) Whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the fact of litigation by the occupants lost importance in respect of the question of valuation as the occupants were in possession of some portion of the property only and that too as servants or licensees ? " 2. Sorabji D. Medora owned certain properties. The properties with which we are concerned in this reference are Jamsie Villa situated on the Ashram Road, Ahmedabad, and lands bearing Survey Nos. 39, 72, 74, 75, 76 and 77 of Ghodasar village. He had a one-fifth share in Jamsie Villa. He died on August 8, 1968. It appears that the accountable persons were called upon by the Assistant Controller to furnish further information in respect of these properties. Accordingly, the accountable persons filed a statement and in that statement, the value of the entire bungalow known as Jamsie Villa was shown at Rs. 5,29,800. The value of the deceased's onefifth share was shown at Rs. 1,06,000. The value of the lands bearing Survey Nos. 74, 75 and 76 was shown at Rs. 18,000 and the value of the lands bearing Survey Nos. 5,29,800. The value of the deceased's onefifth share was shown at Rs. 1,06,000. The value of the lands bearing Survey Nos. 74, 75 and 76 was shown at Rs. 18,000 and the value of the lands bearing Survey Nos. 72 and 77 situated at Paldi and Shahwadi was shown at Rs. 15,000. The value of the land bearing Survey No. 39 was shown at Rs. 3,000. The Assistant Controller did not accept the valuation put upon the bungalow and these lands by the accountable persons and considering the proximity of the railway line and Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation limits and also the building potentiality of the lands valued the lands at Rs. 3 per sq. yard. He did not accept the accountable persons' valuation in respect of Jamsie Villa on the ground that similarly situated properties were sold at higher rates and that the valuation report submitted by the Department's Valuation Officer disclosed the real value of the said bungalow at Rs. 17,47,900 which was arrived at the rate of Rs. 2.15 per sq. yard. The Assistant Controller computed the principal value of the estate of the deceased accordingly. As the accountable persons were not satisfied with the order passed by the Assistant Controller, they preferred an appeal to the Appellate Controller of Estate Duty. The order was also challenged on some other grounds with which we are not concerned in this reference. The Appellate Controller found that the view taken by the Assistant Controller was quite proper and, therefore, he dismissed the appeal. The accountable persons then approached the Tribunal by way of a second appeal which came to be partly allowed. The Tribunal held that the two sale instances out of four in respect of agricultural lands were not comparable and, therefore, valuation of these lands at Rs. 3 was not proper and that the lands should have been valued at the rate of Rs. 1.50 per sq. yard. As regards Jamsie Villa, the Tribunal, on consideration of the four sale instances relating to IA Chambers, Bhavani Chambers, Jadav Chambers and National Chambers, held that the property Jamsie Villa should be valued at Rs. 1.50 per sq. yard as that was the highest rate at which one of those properties was sold and as there was no material to show that the lands covered by those comparable sales were in any way inferior to the property in question. 3. 1.50 per sq. yard as that was the highest rate at which one of those properties was sold and as there was no material to show that the lands covered by those comparable sales were in any way inferior to the property in question. 3. The accountable persons were not satisfied even with this order of the Tribunal and, therefore, they moved the Tribunal for referring the abovestated four questions to this court. 4. What is contended by learned counsel for the accountable persons is that while fixing the valuation of Survey Nos. 39, 72, 74, 75, 76 and 77, the Tribunal has taken into consideration the sale in respect of a small plot of land admeasuring 1,000 sq. yards. As against that, the total area of Survey Nos. 72, 74, 75, 76 and 77, which is a compact block, is about 56,628 sq. yards. Survey No. 39, though separated by a railway line is almost opposite to the said block of lands and the area of that plot also was about 2,200 sq. yards. He also submitted that bigger plots do not fetch the same price as are fetched by small plots and, therefore, some deduction on that count ought to have been made by the Tribunal while fixing valuation of the lands in question. The fact that Survey Nos. 72, 74, 75, 76 and 77 formed a compact block is not in dispute and is amply borne out by the material on record. Compared to the area of 1,000 sq. yards of Survey No. 50 which was sold on October 14, 1968, at Rs. 1.50 per sq. yard, the area of lands in question is about 50 times more. Obviously, such a big plot of land could not have fetched the same price as was fetched by Survey No. 50. The Tribunal having found that that was the only comparable instance of sale ought to have, therefore, made appropriate deduction from the sale price thereof while fixing the value of lands in question. The Tribunal was certainly wrong in adopting the same value and, in our opinion, it ought to have made deduction of 30 per cent. from the rate at which 1,000 sq. yards of Survey No. 50 were sold while fixing the value of Survey Nos. 72, 74, 75, 76 and 77. 5. The Tribunal was certainly wrong in adopting the same value and, in our opinion, it ought to have made deduction of 30 per cent. from the rate at which 1,000 sq. yards of Survey No. 50 were sold while fixing the value of Survey Nos. 72, 74, 75, 76 and 77. 5. As regards Survey No. 39, the authorities have thought it fit to value it at the same rate at which other lands were valued. Therefore, with respect to Survey No. 39 also, the Tribunal will be required to fix its value accordingly while giving effect to the order of this court. But we find that the accountable persons themselves had valued Survey No. 39 at Rs. 1.37 per sq. yard. Therefore, the value of Survey No. 39 will have to be fixed at Rs. 1.37 per sq. yard. 6. While valuing the property known as Jamsie Villa, the Tribunal did not accept the contention of the Department that the circumstance that this very property was sold for Rs. 31,09,860 in 1974 should be taken into consideration. The Tribunal also noted the fact that four other properties, namely, IA Chambers, Bhavani Chambers, Jadav Chambers and National Chambers, were situated right on the Ashram Road while the site occupied by Jamsie Villa was not on Ashram Road but somewhat removed from it. Even then, the Tribunal proceeded on the basis that other sites were not inferior and, therefore, the site occupied by Jamsie Villa should be valued at Rs. 1.50 per sq. yard, which was the highest rate at which one of those four sites was sold. Learned counsel for the accountable persons was justified in criticising this approach of the Tribunal. What was required to be considered was whether the land in question was superior or inferior to the lands which were the subject-matter of other instances of sale and not whether "lands covered by those comparative sales were in any way inferior to the property in question". Moreover, the Tribunal has not indicated why the highest price at which one of those lands was sold should be regarded as the proper value of the land in question. Moreover, the Tribunal has not indicated why the highest price at which one of those lands was sold should be regarded as the proper value of the land in question. We may, at the same time, state that learned counsel for the Revenue was right in pointing out that the Tribunal was wrong in stating that "the property in question was admittedly situate not right at Ashram Road but somewhat removed from that road". The said property is abutting on the Ashram Road though it has a small frontage on the Ashram Road. Learned counsel for the accountable persons is also right in submitting that the Tribunal went wrong in holding that the value of the property was not affected because of the fact that it was occupied by some tenants and also by servants of accountable persons, no doubt as licensees and that a litigation was also going on with the tenants of that property. He also submitted that there was no comparison between the situation of the property which fetched the price of Rs. 1.50 per sq. yard and the land in question. He, therefore, submitted that considering the situation of the property, the litigation which was going on between the accountable persons and their tenants in respect of this property and that it was jointly owned along with others, the Tribunal ought to have valued the property at an appropriately lesser rate. 7. Learned counsel for the Revenue did not dispute the fact that there were some tenants on the property and that litigation between the accountable persons and the tenants was going on, on August 8, 1968. That the deceased had a one-fifth share in the property is not in dispute. The property consisted of some buildings on the land with the result that the purchaser of the one-fifth share could not have asked for division of that land so as to become entitled to have a separate plot out of it. These were all relevant factors and they would have certainly entered into The Tribunal was, therefore, wrong in disregarding these relevant factors. Consideration of the intending purchaser while quoting the purchase price. The property known as Jamsie Villa had frontage of only 150 feet on the Ashram Road. From the order passed by the Tribunal, it appears that the land over which IA Chambers stands was sold at the rate of Rs. Consideration of the intending purchaser while quoting the purchase price. The property known as Jamsie Villa had frontage of only 150 feet on the Ashram Road. From the order passed by the Tribunal, it appears that the land over which IA Chambers stands was sold at the rate of Rs. 1.30 per sq. yard in February, 1968. The land occupied by Bhavani Chambers was sold at the rate of Rs. 1.51 per sq. yard in February, 1969, and the land occupied by National Chambers was sold at Rs. 1.50 per sq. yard in July, 1971. It further appears from the record that the land occupied by IA Chambers building had a frontage of 266 feet. Even assuming that the lands occupied by Bhavani Chambers and National Chambers had almost the same advantages and disadvantages as the land in question situation wise, the fact remains that so far as the land in question is concerned, it had its own disadvantages, in the sense, it was owned jointly by five persons and there were certain tenants and licensees on the land. The accountable persons had raised these points before the authorities to claim deduction of 22 to 25 per cent. on this count. In our opinion, the Tribunal was wrong in not considering these aspects and making a suitable deduction from the rate of Rs. 150 per sq. yard. In our opinion, the property in question would have fetched 20 per cent. less than the price at which the lands occupied by the Bhavani Chambers and National Chambers were sold. The Tribunal would have been right in fixing the price at 20 per cent. less than Rs. 1.50 per sq. yard. 8. For the reasons stated above, we answer all the four questions as indicated by us. Reference is disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.