access and that the property covered by Exhibit A2 document is having direct road access as in the case of the acquired land. The court below also noticed the fact that Exhibit A2 land and the acquired land are more or less similar and comparable in nature. It was further revealed that the transaction in Exhibt A2 is of the year 1996 whereas the section 4(1) notification is in the year 1998. Therefore, taking into consideration all the materials on record, the court below took the view that Rs.20,000/= per cent is the reasonable land value for the property acquired. We find that the reasons stated for refixing the land value of the property at the rate of Rs.20,000/= per cent is fair, just and proper. We find no reason to interfere with the decision of the court below. Regarding the value of the garden land also pro rata increase was made by the court below and the value was refixed at Rs.25,000/= per cent. Considering the fact that the value fixed for the wet land is Rs.20,000/- we are of the view that the value fixed for the dry land is also proper, just and reasonable. We find no merit in this appeal and the appeal is dismissed.
