ORDER 1. A notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short the Act) was published on 6-10-1975 acquiring Ac. 7.14 cents of land near Bangalore for Agriculture University. Pursuant to the notice under Sections 9 and 10, the respondents claimed compensation at the rate of Rs 60,000 per acre. The Land Acquisition Collector awarded compensation for the agricultural land to the extent of Ac. 5.20 cents, @ Rs 12,000 per acre and for Ac. 1.34, he awarded @ Rs 1000 per acre, treating the same as phot-kharab land. On reference under Section 18, the Court relying upon a saledeed, Ext. P-6 dated 24-2-1975 to an extent of Ac. 1.8 cents sold at Rs 50,000 per acre which was purchased for setting up of a factory, awarded Rs 42,500 per acre. Being dissatisfied, the appellant preferred appeal before the High Court, which by its impugned judgment dated 7-9-1979 confirmed the same, against which these appeals by special leave have been filed. 2. Two contentions have been raised by Mr M. Veerappa, learned counsel for the appellant. First, it is argued that in view of the fact that the lands under Ext. P-6 are situated at a distance of 2 to 3 furlongs from the acquired lands, it would be evident that those lands are not similarly situated and, therefore, awarding compensation at the rate of Rs 42,500 per acre relying on Ext. P-6 is not justified in law. We find no force in the contention. The High Court has considered the fact that the lands are nearer to the Bangalore-Mysore Road and nearabout the lands where Coca-Cola factory is established. Finding these circumstances favour able to the respondents, the High Court confirmed the award at the rate of Rs 42,500 per acre. 3. It was next contended that the Reference Court and the High Court were not justified in awarding compensation at the rate of Rs 42,500 for Ac. 1.34 cents which is phot-kharab when the agricultural lands also had been awarded at the rate of Rs 42,500 per acre. Though prima facie we were impressed with this argument but, unfortunately, this contention was not raised in the High Court nor the High Court had advantage of going into this circumstance. Even the reference court judgment has not been made part of the record. Though prima facie we were impressed with this argument but, unfortunately, this contention was not raised in the High Court nor the High Court had advantage of going into this circumstance. Even the reference court judgment has not been made part of the record. Therefore, we are unable to know what are the grounds that weighed with the Reference Court to award compensation at the rate of Rs 42,500 for the phot-kharab land to the extent of Ac. 1.34 cents. It is also to be seen that this point was not raised in the grounds of appeal in this Court. 4. In these circumstances, we are constrained not to agree with the contentions raised by the appellant. The appeals are accordingly dismissed. No costs. For Citation: 1995(5) SCC 584