JUDGMENT : Patra, J. - This is an appeal from an Award dated 25.7-1964 made by the Special Judicial Officer, Land Acquisition, Rourkela in a reference u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 2.38 acres of land including 1 cent of Gharbari land in village Mahulapali belonging to the Appellant Maguni Chandra Dwivedi was acquired by Government under two notifications-2.37 acres of arable lands by notification dated 11-7-1958 and 0.01 acre of homestead land by notification dated 2-3-1959. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed the compensation for the land at Rs. 1,039-80 ps. and for the trees standing thereon at Rs. 432-53 ps. making the total compensation Rs. 1472.33 ps. although the Appellant claimed before him compensation at Rs. 30000/-per acre. The statutory compensation of 15% on the total compensation does not appear to have been awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. At the instance of the Appellant the Collector made a reference u/s 18 of the Act to the Court. 2. Although 2.38 acres of land appears to have been acquired under the two notifications referred to above the case of the Appellant in the Court, below was that despite the notifications the State had actually acquired only 0.89 acre of land and that the remaining portion of the lands covered by the notification are still in his possession. He therefore disputed the correctness of the proportionate compensation paid in respect of 0.89 acre of land. This 0.89 acre of land are comprised in three plots, 0.47 acre of land under plot No. 214, 0.01 acre of land under plot No. 214/1 and 0.41 acre of land under plots Nos. 460 and 461. The learned Special Judicial Officer had made it local inspection of the acquired lands and the local inspection report is on record. It appears therefrom that the 0.47 acre of land under plot No. 214 and the 0.01 acre of land under plot No. 214/1 are in one compact block and on this 0.48 decimals of land there at present stands the new Rourkela Railway Station. The remaining 0.41 acre of land covered by plot Nos. 460 and 461, which the learned Court below describes as a low land stand in one compact block at a short distance to the south of the above mentioned 0.48 acre of land. The remaining 0.41 acre of land covered by plot Nos. 460 and 461, which the learned Court below describes as a low land stand in one compact block at a short distance to the south of the above mentioned 0.48 acre of land. For reasons which we would discuss presently the learned Judge fixed the market value as on the date of the notification of the 0.48 acre of land at Rs. 7500/- per acre, and the remaining 0.41 acre of land at Rs. 15000/- per acre. On the total amount of Rs. 9750/- which he thus fixed as the market value of the 0.89 acre of lands he allowed the statutory compensation at 15%, thus fixing the total compensation at Rs. 11,212.50 ps. The learned Judge did not stop there, but proceeded to consider the case in respect of the remaining 0.49 acres of land covered by the notifications which according to the objector had not been actually acquired by Government, and still continues to be in his possession. In respect of this 1.49 acres of land, the learned Court below thought that as the compensation fixed by the Land Acquisition Collector had not been challenged before the Court by the objector, the proportionate compensation of Rs. 651-13 ps. which the Collector fixed for this land and the value of the trees standing thereon which is fixed at Re. 432-35 ps. would stand. Thus be fixed the value of 1-49 acres of land together with the trees standing thereon at Rs. 1083-66 ps. which he allowed the statutory compensation of 15%. Being aggrieved by this decision the objector has filed this appeal. 3. The contention of the Appellant before us is that the compensation fixed by the Court below for 0.89 acre of land which according to him had actually been acquired by Government is arbitrary and inadequate and that these lands should have been valued at Rs. 30000/- per acre. His other contention is that in view of the statement made by the objector that the remaining 1-49 acres of land bad not been actually acquired by the Government it was not within the jurisdiction of the learned Court below to proceed to consider about the valuation of this land. 4. 30000/- per acre. His other contention is that in view of the statement made by the objector that the remaining 1-49 acres of land bad not been actually acquired by the Government it was not within the jurisdiction of the learned Court below to proceed to consider about the valuation of this land. 4. We are considerably handicapped in dealing with this case due to very inadequate evidence adduced before the Court below regarding the value of lands in the years 1958 and 1959 in the locality where the acquired lands are situated. No evidence at an has been adduced by the State and the evidence adduced on the objector's side relates to a sale transaction which took place in the year 1952 in respect of a very small bit of land i.e. 0.04 acre in a locality different from the one where the disputed lands are situated. u/s 3(1) of the Act, in determining the amount of compensation, the Court has to take into consideration the market value of the land at the date of publication of the notification u/s 4(1) thereof. Decided cases have laid down that the said market rate must be determined with reference to the price which a willing vendor might reasonably accept to obtain from a willing purchaser. For ascertaining the market rate the Court can rely upon such transactions which would afford a guide to fix the price. Price paid for a land possessing advantages similar to those of the land acquired at or about the time of notification will also supply the data for assessment of compensation. This is unfortunately lacking in this case. It is elementary that in a reference to the Court u/s 18 the burden is on the claimant to show that the award of the Collector is wrong. The claimant is in the position of It Plaintiff and if be fails to lead evidence to show that conclusions recorded in the award are unsatisfactory and the compensation awarded is inadequate, the award would be confirmed. Although four witnesses were examined on the objector's side they all speak about a single transaction of sale which took place in the year 1952 in respect of a small bit of land measuring 4 decimals which fetched a price of Rs. 2000/-. That sale deed is Ex. 1. Neither the vendor nor the purchaser under Ex. Although four witnesses were examined on the objector's side they all speak about a single transaction of sale which took place in the year 1952 in respect of a small bit of land measuring 4 decimals which fetched a price of Rs. 2000/-. That sale deed is Ex. 1. Neither the vendor nor the purchaser under Ex. 1 has been examined in this case and hence the Respondent is deprived of the opportunity to cross-examine them to bring -out special circumstances, if any, that might have existed for payment of Rs. 2000/- for 4 decimals of land. Excepting that the objector and one of his witnesses p.w. 3 has stated that the lands are 300 yards off from the land acquired in this case, there is also no further information about the exact location of the land and the advantages, if any, it possessed. That land does not appear to have been shown to the learned Special Judicial Officer when he made a local inspection of lands acquired in this case and consequently the local inspection report is also silent about the land acquired under Ex. 1. In the circumstances it was rightly held by the learned Court below that Ex. 1 by itself cannot furnish any dependable material to assist in the fixation of compensation for the lands acquired in this case. 5. If a sale deed in respect of a land comparable in point of time and quality with the land acquired can be of evidentiary value, equally clearly the award of a Court of comparable dates in respect of such lands will also be of valuable assistance in assessing the market value, because by the award the Court fixes the market value of such a land having regard to the same principles which should guide a Court in fixing the value of land acquired. In fact, such an award would be better evidence as it has the merit of an objective ascertainment of the market value on the basis of relevant evidence. Misc. In fact, such an award would be better evidence as it has the merit of an objective ascertainment of the market value on the basis of relevant evidence. Misc. Appeal No. 27/64 which we disposed of on 18th of June, 1968; related to fixation of compensation of 17 acres of land in village Mahulpali (the very mouza in which the lands in the present dispute are situated) which were acquired by Government for the purpose of expansion of the Railway facilities at Rourkela under two notifications dated 1st July, 1958 and 13th March, 1959, i.e. about the same time when the notifications were issued in this case. The land in that case is in one block. On its adjacent south runs the Rourkela main road and on its adjacent north is the Railway line. That plot on its eastern extremity has the approach road to the new Rourkela Railway Station. After examining certain sale deeds produced in that case and taking into consideration the growing importance of Rourkela town on the industrial and commercial side we fixed the value of the land as on the date of the acquisition at Rs. 9375/- per acre. 0.8 acre of land acquired in the present case are in two blocks-one block measuring 0.48 decimals in extent is a site where the new Rourkela Railway Station has been constructed and the other block measuring 0.41 decimals is situated a little inside to the east of the branch road connecting the Railway Station with the main Rourkela town road. The Rourkela town road is at a distance of half a furlong to the south of the 0.41 decimals of land. It is therefore clear that the lands acquired in this case are practically in the same locality as the lands forming the subject matter of Misc. Case No. 27/64 referred to above in which we fixed compensation at Rs. 9375/- per acre. In view of the paucity of independent evidence in this case we would have normally fixed the valuation of the lands acquired in this case also at Rs. 9375/- per acre. But the learned Court below has fixed the valuation of the 0.41 decimals of land referred to above at Rs. 9375/- per acre. In view of the paucity of independent evidence in this case we would have normally fixed the valuation of the lands acquired in this case also at Rs. 9375/- per acre. But the learned Court below has fixed the valuation of the 0.41 decimals of land referred to above at Rs. 15000/-; per acre which is much higher than the rate fixed by us in the previous case and as the State Government have not preferred any cross appeal we have no other alternative but to uphold the order of the Court below in respect of this bit of 41 decimals of land. The Court below has fixed the valuation of the remaining 48 decimals of land at Rs. 7500/- per acre. For reasons stated above we fix its value at Rs. 9375/- per acre, at which rate the price of 48 decimals of land comes to Rs. 4500/-. This has to be added to the amount of Rs 0150/- which is the price of 41 decimals of land calculated at Rs. 15000/- per acre. We thus fix the total market value of the 0.9 decimals of land at Rs. 10650/- to which the statutory compensation of 15% should be added. The Appellant would also be entitled to interest 6 p.c.p.a. on the excess amount awarded by this Court over that awarded by the Collector from the date on which possession was taken or if possession was taken on different dates, from the last of such dates, till the date of payment of such excess into Court. 6. It is the specific case of the Appellant that although notifications were issued in respect of 2.38 acres of land, Government actually took over possession of only 0.89 acre of land and that the remaining land covered by the notifications is still in Appellant's possession. This is however not borne out by the reference made by the Collector to the Court u/s 18 of the Act. But in view of the specific case of the Appellant on this point it has to be assumed that he does not press the reference in respect of the lands over and above the 0.89 decimals of land. This is however not borne out by the reference made by the Collector to the Court u/s 18 of the Act. But in view of the specific case of the Appellant on this point it has to be assumed that he does not press the reference in respect of the lands over and above the 0.89 decimals of land. There was therefore no occasion for the Court below to pass an award in respect of the excess lands although there is no specific case on behalf of the Respondent that only 0.89 acre of land had been ultimately acquired. The statement of the Appellant in his deposition in the Court below that the remaining 1.49 acres of land covered by the notification is still in his possession has gone unchallenged. This shows that his statement is true. In any event in view of the specific case made by the Appellant regarding the extent of the lands acquired there was no necessity for the Court to fix the valuation of this excess land. 7. In the result, the appeal is allowed to the extent indicated in para 5 above. In the circumstances, parties should bear their own costs in this appeal. G.K. Misra, J. 8. I agree. Final Result : Allowed