These seven appeals have been filed against common order dt. 18th Dec., 1985 of IAC (Acq.), Jaipur, and are, therefore, disposed of by this single order. Khasra Nos. 1641 & 1658 measuring 5 bighas, 8 Biswas and 10 Biswansi land was sold by seven parties to seven other parties for Rs. 12,400 each. To estimate fair market value of land, IAC (Acq.) referred matter to ITO, Beawar. Inspector estimated fair market value of each portion at Rs. 30,000, as result of which fair market value of entire property was taken at Rs. 2,10,000. After going through this report, IAC (Acq.) initiated acquisition proceedings under s. 269D of IT Act and issued notices to purchasers. By subsequent letters, it was further pointed out that agricultural land was situated near Vinod Nagar and same was surrounded by lands of others on three sides and Kacha Rasta on one side. Atleast half of land would have to be left for roads. Moreover, this was agricultural land and conversion charges at Rs. 18 per sq. yd. and development charges would have to be paid to State Govt. agricultural land within Municipal limits was exempt from liability to capital gains and onus of proving under-statement in sale deed was upon Revenue, in view of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of K.P. Varghese vs. ITO (1981) 24 CTR (SC) 358: (1981) 131 ITR 597 (SC). It was, therefore, prayed that proceedings be dropped. IAC(Acq.) was, however, of opinion that Inspector had estimated value of lands after considering all particulars. There was no proof as to what conversion charges would have to paid to Govt. Even if some conversion charges had to be paid, market value of residential land in locality was not less than Rs. 70 per sq. yd. Therefore, estimate of value of this land at Rs. 30 per sq. yd. could not be said to be excessive. It was not question of computation of capital gains under s. 52 (2). Since land was within municipal limits, sales would attract liability to capital gains. In any case, Acquisition proceedings under s. 269 of IT Act were not affected. decision in case of K.P. Verghese did not apply to present case. Under s. 269C(2) if market value of land was more than 15 per cent of sales consideration, acquisition proceedings could be taken in relation thereto. parties had not produced any evidence in support of correctness of sale consideration nor had they cited any comparable cases. market value of land sold in each case was more than Rs. 25,000 and thus higher by more than 25 per cent of sale price. IAC(Acq.) therefore, acquired all lands in question. assessees have come up in appeals before us. We heard representatives of parties at length in these appeals. representative of assessee filed lengthy paper book in support of various contentions raised by him. most of these papers relate to other sales in locality and were directed towards fact that sale prices in question were fair estimates of market value which in any case could not exceed Rs. 25,000. Apart from that he raised number of legal issues that onus of proving that sales price did not reflect true market value was on Department and mere report of Inspector was not sufficient to prove market value. Department should have proved market value by satisfactory evidence and that market value could not be determined with reference to residential plots sold in locality because these plots could be converted into residential ones after paying necessary development charges and leaving about 40 per cent of area for roads etc. After carefully considering all facts and circumstances of case, we are of opinion that there has been no proper and fair adjudication of matter by authorities below. Prima facie evidence of market value being higher was there in form of Inspector's report. Although it was not report of Technical Expert, it had referred to certain instances of sales to Sri Kanwarlal Lodha, Sri Suresh Chand & Om Prakash of Beawar by Sri Harsukhlal. Similarly two instances of sales by Mahaveer & Co. to Rajendra Prasad and Sri Lal Chand occurring in year 1979 were quoted. rates of these sales ranged between 25 to 30 per sq. yd. These sales are about of same period as present sales in question. It was also not seriously disputed that lands sold by these sales were in same locality. At same time, we are of opinion that IAC (Acq.) has been rather hasty in passing final order. One of most important points argued by Mr. Ranka was that these sales were of smaller plots. According to him sellers had already obtained permission for converting these lands into residential lands. lands purchased by parties were still described as agricultural lands in record and no permission had been secured to convert them into residential lands. In fact, there were limitation on such conversion. Unfortunately, except for filing objections, before IAC(Acq) appellants did not produce any evidence of kind which they have done now. Although case was adjourned one or two occasions, no detailed enquiry into objections was made by IAC(Acq.) nor did assessees choose to put in evidence which Mr. Ranka has put forward before us. We really regret to observe that procedure adopted by IAC(Acq.) in present case was rather extremely brief, and details were not enquired into. These are serious matters involving acquisition valuable lands and depriving parties of their substantial rights of ownership. first appeal against acquisition lies to Tribunal, and second appeal lies directly to High Court. Therefore, detailed enquiry into market value of specific land, use to which they were actually being put to and to which they were intended to be put to, cost of providing amenities for residential use alleged by Department, conversion charges, all should have been looked into. At same time, it may be pointed out that since rights of appellants were being affected, they should have insisted upon leading evidence in support of their objections which they do not appear to have done. Thus there has been wholly improper consideration of matter and orders have been passed without proper enquiry therein. In Kapoorchand Srimal vs. CIT (1981) 24 CTR (SC) 345: (1981) 131 ITR 451 (SC) it has been held that "it is well known that appellate authority has jurisdiction as well as duty to correct all errors in proceedings under appeal and to issue if necessary, appropriate directions to authority against whose decision appeal is preferred to dispose of whole or any part of matter afresh, unless forbidden from doing so by statute. We, therefore, accept these appeals, set aside orders of IAC(Acq.) and direct him to decide issue afresh after giving reasonable opportunity to appellants to produce all evidence in support of their contentions and in light of our aforesaid observations. For statistical purpose these appeals shall be deemed to have been allowed as such. A. KALYANASUNDHARAM, J.M. I concur with final conclusion arrived at by my ld. brother. However, I I concur with final conclusion arrived at by my ld. brother. However, I would like to add that Inspector's report indicating sale prices of adjoining land does not at all bring out salient similarities of nature of lands so sold. In all such matters, what is important is that sale instances have to be of identical nature of lands, not only of adjoining lands. If adjoining lands are converted as housing plots unauthorisedly and sold as such, then they can never be compared unless entire belt has been remodified to be housing area or as non-agricultural and preventing from carrying on of agricultural activity. IAC shall do well to take into all likes and dislikes of sale instances by Inspector and by assessee and then come to decision. *** SMT. PRAKASH KANWAR v. COMPETENT AUTHORITY, INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER