SARJOO PROSAD C. J.: This appeal arises out of. a reference made under S. 18, Land Acquisition Act (Act I of 1894), in regard to the valuation of certain lands which are . the subject-matter of acquisition proceedings. The area under acquisition is 5 Bighas of land falling under patta No. 94/1 of Mangaldai Town, standing in the name of the respondent, Phani Bhusan Bose, and it comprises of five dags. Two of the dags, Nos. 254 and 255, according "to the evidence ol Baneswar Saharia, who is the Super­vising Kanango of Mangaldai, are second class trade sites; all the other dags are third class residential sites. This classification has not been challenged by the Respondent, and both the Collector as well as the learned Subordinate Judge have proceeded to determine the market value of these lands on the basis of this classification. The Collector valued dags 254 and 255, the second class trade sites, at Rs. 8007- per bigha, while the other dags were valued at Rs. 4007- per bigha, the total amount of compensation fixed by the Collector coming to Rs. 2815/127- only, which included also the value of houses and trees, and the Additional compensation payable under S. 23, Land Acqui­sition Act. (2) The claimant objected to the valuation fixed by the- Collector. According to him, the entire area should have been valued at Rs. 25007- per bigha. So far as the valuation of the trees and houses is concerned, there is no objection. It is also not disputed now that the Court has to determine the market value prevalent in Novem­ber 1945 when the Land Acquisition notice was issued. The learned Subordinate Judge has given the claimant the full benefit of his claim in regard to the second class trade-site lands; that is to say, he has valued the two dags at Rs. 2500/- per bigha. The value of the other dags, the learned Subordinate Judge proceeded to determine on the basis of Ext. A, a sale-deed, executed by the Ob­jector in favour of one Chandra Sarma conveying 2 Kathas, 8 Lechas of land in 1943 for Rs. 600/-. On that basis, the learned Subordinate Judge thought that the value of these lands should come to Rs. 1800/- per bigha. It is on this basis that the Subordinate Judge determined the market value of the land in question. 600/-. On that basis, the learned Subordinate Judge thought that the value of these lands should come to Rs. 1800/- per bigha. It is on this basis that the Subordinate Judge determined the market value of the land in question. (3) The Collector has appealed, against the valuation and there is a cross-appeal by the Ob­jector. The principles on which market values are determined in such cases are well-settled. The; owner is entitled to the value of the property in! its actual condition at the time of the expropriation notice with all its existing advantages and; with all its future possibilities excluding such advantages as may arise on account of any scheme for the purpose of which the property was being acquired. In the present case, the lands are in­tended to be acquired for the purpose of settling a Municipal market. The Court has, therefore, to determine the value of the lands as best as it can on the materials produced before it, with a view to ascertain what value a willing vendor could reasonably expect to obtain from a willing purchaser of the lands in that particular position and with those particular potentialities. It is to be remembered that the land is not to be valued merely with reference to the use to which it is being put at the time at which its value has to be determined that time being the date of the notification, that is, November 1945, in this case, but also with reference to the use to which it is reasonably capable of being put in the future. (See - 'Atmaram Bhagwant v. Collector of Nagpur', AIR 1929 PC 92 (A) and - 'Narayana Gajapatiraju v. Revenue Divisional Offi­cer, Vizagapatam', AIR 1939 PC 98 (B). In this •case, the evidence of the claimant, Phani Bhusan Bose, is that these lands are high lands situate near the 'bazar' intervened by a road within the Municipal area. He, however, admits that the lands were pur­chased by him along with other lands, in total comprising an area of about 22 bighas, for Rupees 8000/- only. This was in 1939. The lands were jungle lands and except levelling the land, the claimant says he made no other improvement thereon. He, however, admits that the lands were pur­chased by him along with other lands, in total comprising an area of about 22 bighas, for Rupees 8000/- only. This was in 1939. The lands were jungle lands and except levelling the land, the claimant says he made no other improvement thereon. The area is about 150 yards off from a burial ground and the trenching ground, which lies beyond the drain of his lands, is about 75 to 100 yards off from the disputed land. The land has, therefore, its obvious disadvantages as well. It is unnecessary to look into any document prior to 1939 in order to determine the value of the lands, but we have considered the evidence that has been offered to prove the market value between 1.939 and 1945. So far as the second class trade site lands, that is, dags 254 and 255, are concerned, the Collector fixed their value at Rupees 800/- per bigha. The learned Subordinate Judge has given no reasons for not accepting that value and for accepting the entire claim of the peti­tioner in assessing the value of these lands at Rs. 2500/- per bigha. There can be, however, no doubt that these lands will fetch a higher value than the third class residential site lands com­prised in the other dags. It is pointed out by Mr. Medhi on behalf of the appellant that Ext. A shows that the value of 2 katha and 8 lechas was Rs. 600/- in 1943 and, therefore, the valuation would not come to Rupees 1800/- per bigha, as wrongly assumed by the learned Subordinate Judge, but roughly to about Rs. 1300/- per bigha. This contention, in my opin­ion, is correct. If, therefore, Rs. 1300/- per bigha is adopted as the basis for computing the value of the other dags, then the value of these trade-site areas would be certainly higher. We would fix their valuation at Rs. 20007- per bigha which, in our opinion appears to be a fair valuation of these lands. The area of these lands being 2 katha and 8 lechas, we would, on that basis, roughly take the value of these lands to be Rupees 1000/-, only. This valuation compares favourably with the valuation given in Ext. 5, which is a sale-deed executed by the Objector, Sri Phani Bhusan Bose, in favour of one Motior Rahman Bepari on 8-1-1940. The area of these lands being 2 katha and 8 lechas, we would, on that basis, roughly take the value of these lands to be Rupees 1000/-, only. This valuation compares favourably with the valuation given in Ext. 5, which is a sale-deed executed by the Objector, Sri Phani Bhusan Bose, in favour of one Motior Rahman Bepari on 8-1-1940. The sale was in respect of an area of 2 kathas 11 lechas of land in dag No. 179, for a consideration of Rs. 900/-. That land was, of course, first class • business-site land. So, for first class business-site lands, the valuation roughly came to Rs. 1800/- per bigha on the basis of this document, and since admittedly the value had arisen between 1940 and 1945, we are fixing the valuation of the second class trade-site lands in the present case at Rs. 20007- per bigha in 1945. In the case of the other dags, we have accepted the basis of valuation given by the learned Sub­ordinate Judge himself, with this difference that he committed an error in assuming that, on the basis of the document, the valuation came to Rs. 1800/- per bigha, when as a matter of fact it came to only about Rs. 1300/- per bigha, roughly. For the respondent, it has been argued that Ext. A should not be a safe basis for calculation, as there are other documents on which the market value could be determined. Reference has been made to a document (Ex. 4) which is a sale-deed executed by the Objector on 13-11-45 in respect of 2 kathas 5 lechas of land for a consideration of Rs. 2000/-. This was almost at the time of the Land Acqui­sition notice. The valuation, according to this document, is much higher than even the claim of the Objector himself, and the learned Subor­dinate Judge was right in rejecting this document for the purpose of determining the market value. There are two other documents on which re­liance has been placed. They are Exts. 6 and 7 relating to small areas of land. In the one case, it is an area of 1 katha 12 lechas, and the sale-deed is dated 18-2-46, for a consideration of Rupees 3000/-; and in the other case, the area is 1 katha and the sale-deed is dated 7-7-43 for a considera­tion of Rs. 500/-. They are Exts. 6 and 7 relating to small areas of land. In the one case, it is an area of 1 katha 12 lechas, and the sale-deed is dated 18-2-46, for a consideration of Rupees 3000/-; and in the other case, the area is 1 katha and the sale-deed is dated 7-7-43 for a considera­tion of Rs. 500/-. The evidence of the witnesses who came to prove these documents shows that these lands are about 1J furlongs or 1 furlong off from the lands in claim. The purchasers of the small strips may have had some special reason for paying a higher price. Therefore, on these sale-deeds it is impossible to determine the correct value of the lands. As I have shown from the evidence, no other possibilities have been pointed out to us on which we can assume that the lands were capable of any higher valuation. In fact, the disadvantages of the trenching ground or the burial ground are there. (4) In these circumstances, we think that it would be appropriate to determine the valuation of the two dags 254 and 255 at Rs. 1000/- and that of the other dags roughly at Rs. 6000/-. There­fore, the total valuation would come to about Rs. 7000/- in addition to the value of the trees and the houses, as also the additional compen­sation payable under S. 23, Land Acquisition Act. The appeal is allowed to this extent, and the cross-objection is dismissed. There will be no order for costs. (5) Mr. Das on behalf of the objector has claim­ed that he should be entitled to interest at the rate of 6 p. c. per annum from the dale on which the Collector took possession of the land up to the date of payment of the excess amount over the award given by the Collector. This he claims by virtue of S. 28, Land Acquisition Act. The learn­ed Subordinate" Judge did not consider this ques­tion of payment of interest over the excess amount decreed by him at all, apparently because it was not raised before him. The claimant has, how­ever, urged this ground in his cross-objection. It is true that the direction as to interest is discre­tionary with the Court. The learn­ed Subordinate" Judge did not consider this ques­tion of payment of interest over the excess amount decreed by him at all, apparently because it was not raised before him. The claimant has, how­ever, urged this ground in his cross-objection. It is true that the direction as to interest is discre­tionary with the Court. But unless there are special reasons to the contrary, interest ordinarily, as provided in the section, should be granted to the claimant, specially when there is such a big difference between the award given by the Collec­tor and the amount eventually determined by the Court. We think that in the circumstances of this case, the petitioner should be allowed 6 per cent, interest from the date of delivery of pos­session up to the date of the decree of the learn­ed 'Subordinate Judge, that is, up to 14-8-51, on the excess amount as now determined by this Court over the award given by the Collector. (6) RAM LABHAYA J.: I agree. Order accordingly.