ORDER 1. In these appeals, the common judgment passed by the Division Bench of the High Court, fixing compensation of the lands acquired @ Rs 170 per square yard, is under challenge. 2. An area of 7 acres 5 guntas of land in Survey Nos. 960; 1019/1,2 and 3; 1020/1 and 2 and 1021/2 of Tirumaladevgutta within the municipal limits of Mahbubnagar town was acquired for providing house sites for Scheduled Caste members pursuant to the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ("the Act" for short) published on 17-11-1977. The Land Acquisition Officer, after making inquiry, passed the award fixing the market value @ Rs 12.75p. per square yard and after deducting 1/3rd of the amount towards developmental activities, awarded the compensation @ Rs 8.50 per square yard. The landowners/claimants were not satisfied with the amount of compensation so awarded. Hence, they sought for reference under Section 18 of the Act for seeking enhancement of compensation in respect of the lands acquired. The Reference Court fixed the compensation @ g Rs 200 per square yard in respect of certain land out of the acquired lands and Rs 170 per square yard in respect of other lands, as they were decided separately at different points of time. The claimants, in whose cases compensation was fixed @ Rs 170 per square yard by the Reference Court, took up the matters in appeals before the High Court. The appellants also were not satisfied with the order made by the Reference Court. Consequently, they filed appeals before the High Court challenging the amount of compensation fixed both @ Rs 200 per square yard and Rs 170 per square yard. The High Court by the common judgment, on an elaborate consideration of oral and documentary evidence, fixed the compensation uniformly for the entire extent of land of 7 acres 5 guntas @ Rs 170 per square yard. Hence, these appeals by the MandaI Revenue Officer and others. 3. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the High Court committed an error in relying upon the post-notification sale instances when sale instance of 1976, which was close to the Section 4(1) notification, was very much available on record; the High Court ought not to have relied upon the agreements of sale of 1976. 3. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the High Court committed an error in relying upon the post-notification sale instances when sale instance of 1976, which was close to the Section 4(1) notification, was very much available on record; the High Court ought not to have relied upon the agreements of sale of 1976. He also urged that when the claimants themselves had claimed market value @ Rs 50 per square yard, as such they were not entitled to claim compensation more than Rs 50 per square yard in view of unamended Section 25 of the Act. 4. Per contra, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents made submissions supporting the impugned order stating that the High Court has taken into consideration all relevant aspects in fixing the amount of compensation @ Rs 170 per square yard. He pointed out from the impugned order itself that the agreements of sale of 1976 were rightly taken into consideration by the High Court, in the light of the oral as well as other documentary evidence placed on record. The leamed counsel added that looking to the location of the lands, having potentiality for even developing commercial complex as also the very situation that the lands acquired are situated near the Collectors bungalow abutting 100 ft road, the High Court was right in fixing the compensation @ Rs 170 per square yard. Meeting the contention urged on behalf of the appellants that as per the unamended Section 25, the respondents could not claim more than Rs 50 per square yard, he submitted that as a matter of fact, the claim made before the Land Acquisition Officer was @ Rs 150 per square yard and not Rs 50 per square yard; this ground was not urged before the High Court during the course of hearing, although it was raised in the memorandum of appeal; in the special leave petition also this ground is not raised; possibly the appellants wanted to take advantage of the recent judgment of this Court in Land Acquisition Officer-cum-DSWO v. B. V. Reddy & Sonsl, According to the learned counsel, this ground cannot be urged before this Court for the first time because it requires verification of the fact, on the basis of the records. 5. 5. Having considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties, we are satisfied that the High Court was right and justified in fixing the compensation @ Rs 170 per square yard. In doing so, the High Court has, as is clear from the impugned order, considered in detail, both documentary and the oral evidence. It has also taken note of the admission made by the witness• RW 1 examined on behalf of the appellants. RW 1, in his evidence, has stated that the value of the acquired lands was between Rs 150 and Rs 200 per square yard at the relevant point of time. Learned counsel for the appellants pointed out that RW 1 was not the Land Acquisition Officer; he was only a Junior Assistant in the District Supply Office. Maybe, the appellants cannot disown his statement having examined on their behalf. It is also not disputed that the lands acquired had potential value, including the development of a commercial complex and they are abutting 100 ft road. As regards the contentions made by the learned counsel for the appellants in respect of Exhibits A-6 and A-7 that they ought not to have been relied upon by the High Court, it may be stated that those agreements were on a stamp paper and the witness had also been examined in respect of the same and either on their genuineness or on the consideration mentioned therein, there was no cross-examination on behalf of the appellants. Even there was no suggestion otherwise. Under the circumstances, the High Court rightly accepted and acted upon those documents coupled with other documents on record. Since the High Court has recorded a finding of fact as to the market value of the lands, based on the evidence, we do not find any good ground or valid reason to take a different view. As regards the contention based on Section 25 of the Act, we may say that this ground having not been urged before the High Court, not raised in the special leave petition, although it is raised subsequently in the rejoinder-affidavit, cannot be permitted to be urged before us for the first time because it requires some verification of facts and records. We may also state here that the respondent claimants are entitled to all the statutory benefits as are available to them on the amount ofcompensation, as determined by the High Court. We may also state here that the respondent claimants are entitled to all the statutory benefits as are available to them on the amount ofcompensation, as determined by the High Court. 6. Thus viewing from any angle, we do not find any merit in these appeals. Consequently, they are dismissed. 7. No costs.