JUDGMENT Mr. K. Kannan, J.: (Oral) - The appeal is for enhancement of compensation for land acquired from the owner which was an extent of 1.83 acres. The landowner relied on the fact that in respect of sales effected proximate to the date of notification issued under Section 4 on 10.03.1987 and the notification under Section 6 issued on 06.12.1988, properties had been sold for Rs. 80,000/- per acre under Ex.P-3; Rs. 75,400 under Ex.P4 and Rs. 45,712/- under R-1 relied on by the State. The learned counsel would argue that the rejection of the sale deeds filed by the appellant were on the basis that they referred to small extent of properties which were in abadi deh, while the property acquired from the appellant was an agricultural land of fairly a larger extent. The counsel would argue that the purpose of acquisition was for construction of a road that virtually could across about 55 feet and the valuation could not have been different from the property that had been sold under P-3, P-4 and R-1. 2. The learned counsel for the State points out to the fact that even if P-3, P-4 and R-1 sales were to be taken as giving any guidance, it could be noticed the valuation operated in an inverse proportion to the extent and the lesser the extent the higher the value of the property had been. Consequently, the determination of valuation over the property of a larger extent at Rs. 75,000/- per acre does not suffer from any vice. 3. The Court that determines compensation ought to examine the relevance of the documents that had been filed and there will be no scope for bringing in factors of one’s own assessment of how the property could not be valued without any reference to the document. The property shown in P-3, P-4 and R-1 are situate in killa No.64/10 which were immediately adjoining the last stretch of acquired land for the road. The exact location of the property of the petitioner is not seen from the plan, but I will assume that the property having been taken for the road, it must be in the proximity of the land covered under P-3, P-4 and R-1. The exact location of the property of the petitioner is not seen from the plan, but I will assume that the property having been taken for the road, it must be in the proximity of the land covered under P-3, P-4 and R-1. I will accept partially the contention of the State that smaller the extent the higher the value and I cannot, therefore, adopt the same valuation as found under P-3 and P-4. The appellant’s land is a small portion of the total area of 1.83 that had been acquired by the Government and instead of discarding all the sale deeds for the only reason that there had been variation in prices, I would adopt what is urged before me by the counsel for the appellant that an average of these prices could be taken as Rs. 67.37 which I round off to Rs. 67. I would adopt the valuation applicable for the appellant’s land at Rs. 67. The appellant would be entitled to the proportionate value of the extent of land that was acquired from him. The appellant would also be entitled to the statutory benefits with interest and solatium on the amount increased. The award is modified and the appeal is allowed to the above extent. ---------0.B.S.0------------