Vittage. As s:en from Ex.B'l , the wet Land situated inthe same vittage i.e,, Hathini was sotd at Rs.1,00,000/-per acre and itsvendeewas examined as R.W.3 to support the said sale transaction.Simitarty, under Ex.B2, R.W.5 haspurchased the tand in the same vittage at Rs.60,000/- lrom R.W.1. As seen from Ex.83 dry land situated at Satigam Vittage, which is nearerto the viLtage in which the land was acquired, wa: sotd at Rs.75,000/- per acre. However, neither the vendor nor th: vendee was examined. So also, as seen from Exs.B4 anci 85, the cl a'imant Nos.22 and 21 respectivety, sotd the wet land in the same vitta;e at Rs.1,00,000/- per acre. However, on the ground that neither tl e vendor nor vendee under Exs.84 and 85 was exarnined to prove the s rle transactions, the reference Court has not taken into the said sate t'ansaction into consideration though they retate to the same vittage. Further, the Land Acquisition Officer has not fited any sate instances o rebut Exs.B4 and 85. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer to the iudgment of the Apex Court detivered by a Constitution Bench in Ceme,t Corporotion of lndia Limited v. Purya ond othersl wherein the Apex Court has categoricatty hetd that "...For bringing a documentary eridence on the record, the same must not only be admissible but the contents thereof must be proved in accordance