ORDER 1. These appeals are against the common judgment of the High Court dated 6-9-2001. 2. Briefly stated, the facts (in CA No. 979 of 2003), are as follows: The appellants land was acquired pursuant to Section 4 notification dated 11-6-1985. Not being satisfied with the award, the appellant claimed reference. In the reference proceedings, he gave evidence to the following effect: "My net income per year per acre of land was around Rs 10,000. I have claimed compensation by applying the multiplier theory for 16 years. In our area land of similar nature had been sold at the rate of Rs 80,000 in the year of acquisition. These are the certified copies of two sale deeds marked as Exts. 2 and 3. This is the certified copy of the order in LA Misc. Case No.7 of 1987 and the Honble Court has awarded Rs 1 lakh 50 thousand marked as Ext. 4. This is the consolidation ROR in respect of the land of my father marked as Ext. 5. I claim that compensation be awarded at the rate of Rs 80,000 per acre or on the basis of 16 years yield." 3. The Reference Court fixed the value of the land at Rs 1,50,000 per acre mainly relying upon the judgment in LA Misc. Case No. 98 of 1986. In that case land of one Bipin Bihari Pujari was acquired. Compensation at the rate of Rs 1.50 lakhs per acre was awarded. The Reference Court proceeded on the basis that both the acquisitions were under the same notification. The Reference Court rejected an argument that the award in LA No. 98 of 1986 was in respect of lands in Village Maneswar whereas the lands of the e appellant were situated in Village Halipalli and that the lands were not similar. The Reference Court concluded that the Land Acquisition Collector had considered the potential value of land of same variety of 14 villages and that he had included Village Maneswar and Village Halipalli as having the same value. 4. The State filed an appeal before the High Court. The High Court has,by the impugned judgment, reduced the compensation to Rs 80,000 per acre. The High Court has concluded that the appellant had not led any evidence to show that the lands at Maneswar and his land were identical or similarly situated. 4. The State filed an appeal before the High Court. The High Court has,by the impugned judgment, reduced the compensation to Rs 80,000 per acre. The High Court has concluded that the appellant had not led any evidence to show that the lands at Maneswar and his land were identical or similarly situated. The High Court has concluded that as the claimant himself had confined his claim to Rs 80,000 per acre, the court below could not determine compensation at Rs 1.50 lakhs per acre. 5. Prior to 1984 Section 25 of the Land Acquisition Act did not permit the court to award an amount in excess of the amount claimed. However, after 1984, Section 25 does not preclude the court from awarding an amount in excess of the amount claimed. Therefore, the High Court is not right when it concludes that the claimant must be confined to his claim. 6. There is no doubt that what has to be paid is the market value of the h• land. As has been held by this Court in the case of Special Deputy Collector v. Kurra Sambasiva Rao1 the best evidence of market value would be the sale transactions in respect of the acquired land to which the claimant himself is a party; the time at which the property came to be sold; the purpose for which it is sold; nature of the consideration and the manner in which the transaction came to be brought out, these are the relevant factors. If those are not available then the sale transactions relating to the neighbouring lands in the vicinity of the acquired land have to be taken into consideration. As seen from the deposition of the appellant, extracted hereinabove, certified copies of sale instances were tendered before the Reference Court. The Reference Court has not referred to or dealt with those sale instances and they do not appear to have been shown to the High Court. Even when we asked the appellants counsel what those sale instances were, he was not in a position to answer. It will, therefore, have to be presumed that they are not helpful to the appellant. It was fairly admitted that the appellant is now not relying on them. 7. Even when we asked the appellants counsel what those sale instances were, he was not in a position to answer. It will, therefore, have to be presumed that they are not helpful to the appellant. It was fairly admitted that the appellant is now not relying on them. 7. The appellant has placed strong reliance on the report of the Land Acquisition Collector wherein he has valued the lands after classifying them into various categories as follows: 1.Bahal pani Rs 30,000 per acre 2.Bahal sadharan Rs 25,000 " 3.Berna pani Rs 25,000 " 4.Berna sadharan Rs 20,000 " 5.Mal pani Rs 20,000 " 6.Mal sadharan Rs 15,000 " 7.Atta pani Rs 15,000 " 8.Atta sadharan Rs 12,000 " 9.Gharbari Rs 30,000 " 10. Patita Rs 8000 8. Thereafter, the Land Acquisition Collector holds that the above rates would apply even to lands of other villages. The other villages include both Maneswar and Halipalli. Maneswar is the village in which lands in LA Misc. Case No. 98 of 1986 were situated whereas Halipalli is the village in which land of the appellant is situated. 9. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of this Court in the case of K. Periasami v. Sub-Tehsildar (Land Acquisitionp wherein it has been held that where the Land Acquisition Officer himself awards a rate higher for the acquired land, it furnishes intrinsic evidence that the lands in question are situated in a more advantageous position than the lands in the other case. It is held that the party would be entitled to a parity of market value. There can be no dispute with this proposition. 10. However, even if the report of the Land Acquisition Officer is taken into consideration, all that is shown is that the value of a certain category of land will be the same in all the villages. Thus, it would show for example that "berna pani" land in all villages is the same. It would also show that the land of the appellant is better land than the "mal pani" land belonging to Bipin Bihari Pujari. However, this does not show market value. For arriving at a a market value, the court has to take into consideration various other factors like the proximity of the two lands, nearness of the land to habitation or public amenities or road, etc. 11. However, this does not show market value. For arriving at a a market value, the court has to take into consideration various other factors like the proximity of the two lands, nearness of the land to habitation or public amenities or road, etc. 11. In this case, the appellant has chosen not to lead any evidence in order to show that his land was near to the other lands and/or that it was similarly situated. On the contrary, the respondents, in their affidavit, have pointed out that the lands in Maneswar village are adjacent to the municipal area of Sambalpur town. They have pointed out that Sambalpur town has a business centre, markets andbazars. They have pointed out that Sambalpur is the Block Headquarter and an All-India Radio Station, a college, high school, primary health centre and mills are located at Maneswar. They pointed out that Village Halipalli is not close to Sambalpur town and that no facilities are available in Village Halipalli. Thus in our view, the High Court was right in concluding that in the absence of any evidence to show that the two lands are similarly situated reliance could not have been placed upon the judgment in LA Case No. 98 of 1986. 12. It was next submitted that even in respect of lands in Village Halipalli there have been a number of other judgments wherein the value has been fixed at Rs 1,50,000 per acre. However, it was fairly admitted that none of those judgments were produced before the High Court. They are sought to be produced for the first time in this COUlt. In our view, it is not open to parties to try and lead additional evidence in this Court. Parties must be confined to what evidence they have led before the lower court. All the judgments which are now sought to be relied upon were available at that time when the matter was argued before the High Court. Had they been produced before the High Court, the other side would have had an opportunity of meeting those judgments. 13. Even otherwise, in our view, market value has to be fixed on evidence led in each case. In this case the evidence is as extracted above. In our view, the evidence of the appellant, as extracted above, clearly shows that• according to the appellant the market value of the land, at the appropriate . 13. Even otherwise, in our view, market value has to be fixed on evidence led in each case. In this case the evidence is as extracted above. In our view, the evidence of the appellant, as extracted above, clearly shows that• according to the appellant the market value of the land, at the appropriate . time, was Rs 80,000 per acre. We are unable to accept the submission that the appellant in his deposition is claiming either Rs 80,000 or Rs 1,60,000 on the basis of 16 years yield. Evidence has to be read as a whole. If it is read as a. whole it is clear that according to the appellant the market value is Rs 80,000 whether taken as market value or taken on the basis of 16 years yield. Thus, the evidence in this case is that the market value at the appropriate time was. Rs 80,000 per acre. This being the evidence of the appellant himself, the market value would have to be fixed at Rs 80,000 per acre. 14. We, thus, see no reason to interfere. The appeals stand dismissed with no order as to costs.