Summarize the following court judgment. ivil Appeal No 138 of 1955. Appeal from the judgment and decree dated October 15	 1953	 of the Mysore High Court at Bangalore in Regular Appeal No. 255 of 1950 51	 arising out of the order dated September 18	 1950	 of the Court of the District Judge	 Bangalore	 in Misc. Case No. 39 of 1947 48. G. Channappa	 Assistant Advocate General	 Mysore R. Gopala Krishnan and T. M. Sen	 for the appellant ' A. V. Viswanatha Sastri	 M. A. Rangaswami	 K. R. Sarma and K. R. Choudhury	 for the respondent. November 7. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by section K. DAS	 J. This appeal by the Special Land Acquisition Officer	 Bangalore	 has been brought to this Court on a certificate granted by the High Court of Mysore	 and is from the decision of the said High Court dated October 5	 1953	 in a regular appeal from an order made by the 2nd Additional District Judge	 Bangalore	 on September 18	 1950	 on a reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (herein. after referred to as the Act). The facts so far as they are relevant to the appeal before us are these. An area of about 51	243 squard 406 yards of land was acquired by Government under Notification No. M. 11054 Med. 80 45 25 dated April 16	 1946	 for development of the Appiah Naidu Maternity Home at Malleswaram	 Bangalore City	 into a Maternity Hospital. There were eight owners interested in the property acquired	 out of whom two objected to the award made by the Special Land Acquisition Officer	 now appellant before us. One of these two was T. Adinarayana Shetty	 a diamond merchant of Mysore City. Originally	 he was the respondent before us	 and on his death his son and legal representative has been brought into the record as the sole respondent to this appeal. The deceased respondent Adinarayana Setty (hereinafter called the respondent) was interested in 48	404 sq. yards out of the total area	 and it may be stated here that there is no dispute before us that out of the said 48	404 sq. yards an area of about 3	000 sq. yards consists of land which has been variously characterised as a depression or a pit or low lying land (called 'halla ' in the local vernacular language). Out of the total amount of compensation awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer	 a sum of Rs. 1	41	169/was awarded to the respondent. The Special Land Acquisition Officer proceeded on the following basis for his award. Firstly	 he found that the land value in and around Bangalore City had increased in recent years owing to the war and the respondent had paid to the Deputy Commissioner	 Bangalore District	 a sum of money called a conversion fine for sanctioning a scheme of converting the land into non agricultural land. Thereafter	 a layout for building sites was prepared and approved by the Municipality and the res pondent sold a few of the sites shown in the layout to some purchasers. This was done before the publication of the preliminary notification of acquisition; but the sale of further building sites was stopped after the said publication. Secondly	 the Special Land Acquisition Officer took into consideration the value of the sites sold by the respondent and came to the conclusion that Rs. 10/ per sq. yard was the market value of the land in question. He awarded to the respondent compensation for approximately 48	404 sq. yards at the 407 rate of Rs. 10/ per sq. yard	 but after deducting therefrom an area of 26	248 sq. yards which	 according to the Special Land Acquisition Officer	 was required for making roads and drains as per the layout scheme. The total amount thus calculated came to Rs. 2	21	563. and odd and from this a sum of Rs. 98	807 was again deducted as representing the expenditure which would be required for making roads and drains. The net amount was thus found to be Rs. 1	22	756 and odd and adding 15% as the statutory compensation payable to the respondent the total amount awarded by	 the Special Land Acquisition Officer to the respondent	 came to Rs. 1	41	169/ . Against this award	 the respondent raised an objection	 and a reference was accordingly made to the District Judge of Bangalore under section 18 of the Act. This reference was heard by the 2nd Additional District Judge who	 by his order dated September 18	 1950	 came to the following conclusions: (i) that the rate awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer at Rs. 10/ per sq. yard was fair and should be	upheld; (ii) that a sum of Rs. 10	000/ for providing electric installation out of the sum of Rs. 98	807/ deducted by the Land Acquisition Officer from the compensation payable to the respondent should not be deducted; and (iii) that with regard to the area of the low lying. land which I was completely excluded by the Land Acquisition Officer	 the respondent should get at the rate of Rs. 3/ per sq. yard or approximately a sum of I Rs. 10	000/ . In other words	 the learned Additional District Judge increased the compensation in favour of the respondent by a sum of about Rs. 20	000/ . Not being satisfied	 the respondent preferred an appeal to the High Court of	 Mysore. The learned Judges of the High Court found that the proper compensation for the land	. except the portion characterised as low lying	 should be Rs. 13/8/per sq. yard and as to the low lying portion it should be reduced by Rs. 51 per sq. yard inasmuch as a sum of Rs. 15	000/ was necessary	 according to the 408 evidence given in the case	 for filling it up; in other words	 the High Court awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 8/8/ per sq. yard for the low lying land. The High Court also reduced the area which had to be deducted for making roads	 etc.	 according to the layout scheme from 26	248 sq. yards to 12	101 sq. yards. It also reduced the layout charges to Rs. 64	432/ . The High Court added to the compensation a sum of Rs. 7	000/ as the value of a building which the respondent had constructed on one of the sites on the finding that the construction was made prior to the preliminary notification. In this respect the High Court departed from the finding of the Land Acquisition Officer that the building was put up after the publicaion of the preliminary notification. The total amount of compensation which the High Court awarded came to about Rs. 4	80	000 and odd. As the judgment of the High Court was a judgment of reversal and the appellant felt dissatisfied with it	 a certificate of fitness was asked for and was granted by the High Court on July 6	 1954. The present appeal has been brought to this Court in pursuance of that certificate. The appellant has confined his appeal to the following three points: (1) payment of compensation of a sum of Rs. 7	000/ for the building said to have been constructed before the publication of the preliminary notification; (2) payment of compensation at Rs. 	8/8/per sq. yard for the low lying land (halla); and (3) payment of compensation at Rs. 13/8/ for the remaining land after deducting the area for making roads and buildings. We may state that there is no dispute before us now as to the area which should be so deducted and also as to the amount of layout charges	 as the findings of the High Court on these two points nave not been challenged before us. On behalf of the respondent our attention has been ' drawn to the decisions of the Privy Council in Charan Das vs Amir Khan (1)	 Narsingh Das vs Secretary of State for India (2) and Nowroji Bustomji Wadia vs (1) (1920) 47 I.A. 255. (2) (1924) 52 I.A. 133. 409 Bombay Government (1). On these decisions it is submitted by learned counsel that though section 26 of the Act was amended in 1921 by insertion of sub section (2) which says that every award shall be deemed to be a decree ' and thus an appeal therefrom must be considered and determined in the same manner as if it is a judgment from a decree in an ordinary suit the established practice of the Privy Council has been not to interfere with a finding on the question of valuation	 unless there is some fundamental principle affecting the valuation which renders it unsound. The practice	 it is stated	 was based on two considerations: first	 that the courts in India were more familiar with local conditions and circumstances on which the valuation depended and	 secondly	 the Privy Council found it necessary to limit the extent of the enquiry in order to spare the parties costly and fruitless litigation. On behalf of the appellant it is submitted that this Court has no doubt adopted the practice that it will not ordinarily interfere with concurrent findings of fact	 but this Court has no such established practice as was adopted by the Privy Council in valuation cases even where a difference of opinion has occurred between two courts upon the number of rupees per yard to be allowed for a plot of land. He has further submitted that the reasons for the practice adopted by the Privy Council do not apply with equal force to this Court. In view of the facts of this case and the opinion which we have formed after hearing learned counsel for both parties	 we do not think it necessary to make any final pronouncement as to the practice which this Court should adopt in a valuation case where two courts have differed. We are content to proceed in this case on the footing that we should not interfere unless there is something to show	 not merely that on the balance of evidence it is possible to reach a different conclusion	 but that the judgment cannot be supported by reason of a wrong application of principle or because some important point affecting valuation has been overlooked or misapplied. (1) (1925) 52 I.A. 367. 52 410 We are satisfied that there is no error of principle or otherwise in the findings of the High Court as to the first two points urged in support of the appeal. As to the construction of the building for which a compensation of Rs. 7	000 has been awarded	 the clear finding of the High Court is that it was constructed prior to the preliminary notification. It has been further stated before us that the building is in actual occupation of the medical department. Learned counsel for the appellant has taken us through the evidence on the question of construction of the house and the application for a licence for building the said ' house which was made by the respondent to the Bangalore Munici pality. We are unable to hold that that evidence has the effect of displacing the clear finding of the High Court. As to the low lying land	 we consider that the High Court has given very good reasons for its finding. Admittedly	 the area of the low lying land (halla) is about 3	000 sq. yards. The Land Acquisition Officer valued it at Rs. 3 per sq. yard. A sum of Rs. 15	000 has been deducted from the compensation payable to the respondent on the ground that that amount will be required for filling up the low lying land and converting it into building sites. Therefore	 the position is that the respondent has not only been made to part with 3	000 sq. yards of land at 3 per sq. yard	 but he has also been made to pay Rs. 15	000 for filling up the land. If these two figures are added	 even then the market value of the land comes to about Rs. 8 per sq. yard. This is so even if we do not follow the method adopted by the High Court that the sum of Rs. 15	000 for 3	000 sq. yards gives an average of Rs. 5 per sq. yard and that amount should be deducted from the rate of Rs. 13 8 0 per sq. yard fixed as the proper compensation for the remaining land. We are of the opinion that on the materials before us the value per sq. yard fixed by the High Court for the low lying land is fully justified even on adoption of the method suggested by learned counsel for the appellant. Learned counsel for the respondent has referred us to the circumstance that some of the sales 411 of building sites which the respondent had made appertained to the low lying land and he has further emphasised the circumstance that just opposite the low lying land which is at the eastern end of the entire area	 some houses had been built. We have taken these circumstances into consideration	 but do not think that the conclusion which learned counsel for the respondent wishes us to draw follows therefrom. First of all	 it is by no means clear that the sales of the building sites at the low rate of Rs. 6 8 0 or thereabout appertained to the low lying land only	 and	 secondly	 the mere circumstance that some buildings have been made on land opposite the low lying lands but on the other side of the road	 does not necessarily mean that the low lying lands are as valuable as the other land in the area. We are therefore of the view that the compensation fixed by the High Court for the low lying land is not vitiated by any error of the kind which will justify our interference with it. We now proceed to consider the third and main point urged on behalf of the appellant	 namely	 the rate of 13/8 per sq. yard for the other land in the area. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted before us that the High Court has committed two fundamental errors in arriving at this finding. Furthermore	 the High Court has been influenced by extraneous considerations such as the purpose for which the land was acquired	 the report of certain medical authorities as to the unsuitability of the land for the purpose for which it was acquired	 and the delay in putting the land to the use for which it was acquired. We agree with learned counsel for the appellant that these were extraneous considerations which had no bearing on the question of valuation and the learned Judges of the High Court misdirected themselves as to the scope of the enquiry before them when they imported these considerations into the question of valuation. We further think that the High Court committed an error of principle in arriving at the figure Rs. 13/8 and the error was committed by adopting a wrong method in ascertaining the market value of the land at the 412 relevant time. It is not disputed that the function of the court in awarding compensation under the Act is to ascertain the market value of the land at the date of the notification under section 4(1) and the methods of valuation may be (1) opinion of experts	 (2) the price paid within a reasonable time in bonafide transactions of purchase of the lands acquired or the lands adjacent to the lands acquired and possessing similar advantages and (3) a number of years ' purchase of the actual or immediately prospective profits of the lands acquired. In the case under our consideration the High Court adopted the second method	 but in doing so committed two serious errors. There were altogether seven transactions of alienation made by the respondent. One was a gift which must necessarily be excluded. The earliest of the sales was in favour of Muniratham which was made on May 15	 1945. Another was made on July 18	 1945. This was in favour of Venugopal who was the husband of a grand daughter of the respondent. Four other transactions in favour of Kapinapathy	 Puttananjappa	 Shamanna and Rajagopal Naidu were made in August	 1945. The notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was made on October 4	 1945. What the learned Judges of the High Court did was to take only four out of the aforesaid six transactions into consideration and then to draw an average price therefrom. The learned Judges gave no sufficient reason why two of the transactions were left out. In one part of their judgment they said : " The evidence discloses that the appellant has effected four sales about a couple of months prior to the date of preliminary notification and the rates secured by him are Rs. 12	 15	 14 and 7/8 which on calculation give an average of Rs. 12/2 per sq. yard ". Why the transaction of May 15	 1945	 which was at a rate of Rs. 6/8 per sq. yard only was left out it is difficult to understand. Similarly	 the transaction of July 18	 1945	 was at the rate of Rs. 10 per sq. yard. That also was left out. We are of the view that this arbitrary selection of four transactions only out of six has vitiated the finding of the High Court. If all the six transactions of sale are taken into consideration	 the average rate comes to about Rs. 10/13 per sq. yard only. Having arbitrarily discarded two of the transactions	 the learned Judges of the High Court committed another error in taking a second average. Having arrived at an average of Rs. 12/2 per sq. yard from the four transactions referred to above	 they again took a second average between Rs. 15	 which was the maximum price obtained by the respondent	 and Rs. 12/2. Having struck this second average	 the learned Judges of the High Court arrived at the figure of Rs. 13/8. No sound reasons have been given why this second average was struck except the extraneous reasons to which we have already made a reference. It is obvious that the maximum price Rs. 15 per sq. yard had already gone into the average when an average was drawn from the four transactions. It is difficult to understand why it should be utilised again for arriving at the market value of the land in question. We are of the view that if the aforesaid two errors are eliminated	 then the proper market value of the land in question is Rs. 11 only. Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to the claim made by the respondent himself before the Land Acquisition Officer (exhibit 11). The respondent had therein said: Hence	 under the standing orders compensation has to be paid at rates for building land in the neighbourhood. This rate ranges from Rs. 10 to Rs. 12	 an average of Rs. 10 a sq. yard	 as could be verified from entries in the local Sub Registrar 's Office and Bangalore City Municipal Office. At any rate	 I myself have sold in the course of this year some six sites out of the land proposed to be acquired for rates ranging from Rs. 7 to Rs. 15 or on an average of Rs. 10 per sq. yard. At this rate the compensation amount will be Rs. 5	12	430 and adding the statutory allowance of Rs. 76	860 at 15 per cent. on the compensation amount on account of the compulsory nature of the acquisition	 the total cost of the land will be Rs. 5	89	290 or nearly six lakhs of rupees. " 414 The learned Judges of the High Court took the aforesaid claim to mean that the average rate was Rs. 10 	per sq. yard	 only if the entire area was taken into consideration; but the rate would be different if small building sites were sold according to a layout scheme. It is worthy of note	 however	 that in his claim the respondent clearly stated that even as building land the average rate in the neighbourhood ranged from Rs. 10 to Rs. 12 per sq. yard and he had himself sold six building sites at an average rate of about Rs. 10 per sq. yard. It is worthy of note that the six transactions to which the respondent referred were sales of small building sites. It appears to us	 therefore	 that the High Court had in effect given the respondent a rate more favourable than what he had himself claimed. We consider	 therefore	 that on a proper consideration of the materials in the record and after eliminating the two errors which the High Court had committed	 the proper value of the land in question should be Rs. 11 per sq. yard. The result	 therefore	 is that we allow this appeal to this limited extent only	 namely	 the order of the High Court will be modified by substituting the figure Rs. 11 per sq. yard for the figure Rs. 13/8 awarded by the High Court as compensation to the respondent for land other than the low lying land. We maintain the order of the High Court that the parties will receive and pay costs in proportion to their success and failure	 as now determined	 in the courts below; but so far as the costs of this Court are concerned	 the parties must bear their own costs in view of their divided success here. Appeal partly allowed.

Certain land belonging to the respondent was compulsorily acquired by the Government for a maternity hospital. Most of the land consisted of building sites but there was a building on a small portion of the land and a portion was low lying land. The Special Land Acquisition Officer held on the basis of the value of sites previously sold by the respondent	 that the market value of the land was Rs. 10/ per sq. yard and awarded a sum of Rs. 1	41	169/ to the respondent as compensation. He did not give any compensation for the low lying land or for the building. Against this award the respondent raised an objection and a reference was made to the District judge. The District judge accepted the rate of Rs. 10/ per sq. yard as fair	 reduced the amount of deductions for providing electric installations by Rs. 10	000/ and allowed a sum of Rs. 10	000/ for the low lying area at the rate of Rs. 3/ per sq. yard	 thereby increasing the amount of compensation by Rs. 20	000/ . Not being satisfied the respondent appealed to the High Court. The High Court held that the rate of compensation for the land except the low lying portion	 should be Rs. 13/8/ per sq yard and for the low lying portion it should be Rs. 8/8/ per sqyard. It further awarded a sum of Rs. 7	000/ for the building. In arriving at the figure of Rs. 13/8/ the High Court took into account only four sale transactions which had been made by the respondent at the rates of Rs. 12	 I5	 14 and 7/8/ per sq. yard but did not take into consideration two other transactions which had been made by the respondent at the rates of Rs. 6/8/ and Rs. 10 per sq. yard. It calculated the average of the four transactions to be Rs. 12/2/per sq. yard and then took a second average between Rs. 15/ 	 405 which was the maximum price obtained by the respondent and RS. 12/2/ and arrived at the figure of Rs. 13/8/ . The High Court was also influenced by considerations such as the purpose for which the land was acquired. 	 the report of certain medical authorities as to the unsuitability of the land for the maternity hospital and the delay in putting the land to the use for which it was acquired. Held	 that with regard to the valuation of the land	 other than the low lying portion	 the High Court misdirected itself by taking into account extraneous considerations and had committed an error of principle in arriving at the figure of Rs. 13/8/ by adopting a wrong method of ascertaining the market value. The High Court ought to have taken the average of all the six sale transactions and arrived at the proper valuation of Rs. 11/. per sq. yard. There was no justification for ignoring two of the sale transactions or for taking a second average. With respect to the compensation for the low lying land and the building there was no error of principle or otherwise in the findings of the High Court and no interference was called for.