JUDGMENT : Patra, J. - On 20-6-1956, the Government of Orissa issued a notification No. 4338XVII-1089/1956-D u/s 3(1) of the Orissa Act XVIII of 1948 for acquisition of 3.99 acres of land belonging to the Respondents Mahammad Suleman and Mahammad Hanif at village Liploi P.S. Rajgangpur District Sundergarh with the object of making the land available to the Orissa Cement Limited, a, public Limited Company, for construction of staff quarters. While these proceedings were pending doubts having arisen regarding the validity of certain land acquisition proceedings started under the Orissa Act XVIII of 1948, the Land Acquisition (Orissa Amendment and Validation) Act, 195 (Act 19 of 1959) was passed and was published in Orissa Gazette dated 4-11-1959. Section 4 of this new Act provided inter alia that in respect of an proceeding for the acquisition of land under the Orissa Act XVIII of 1948 as specified in the schedule (item No. 4 thereof relates to acquisition of land for M/s. Orissa Cement Limited, for the construction of staff quarters at Rajganpur in the district of Sundergarh), any notification published under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Orissa Act (Act XVIII of 1948) shall be deemed to be a notification issued by the State Government u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Central Act) and shall have the same force and effect as if the particular land had been declared u/s 6 of the Central Act to have been needed for the said Company. It also made other incidental provisions. Sub-section (d) provides that the provisions of Sections 39 and 40 of the Central Act shall be deemed to have been fully complied with provided that the agreements with the companies, for which the acquisitions had been made, shall, within a period of six months from the date of commencement of this Act be executed and published in accordance with the provisions of Section 42 of the Central Act. Sub-section (e) provides that the provisions of the Central Act shall as far as may he, apply, and proceedings pending before the Competent Authority or the Arbitrator appointed under the Orissa Act shall respectively stand transferred to and be disposed of by the Collector or the Court M the case may be, as defined in the Central Act. Sub-section (e) provides that the provisions of the Central Act shall as far as may he, apply, and proceedings pending before the Competent Authority or the Arbitrator appointed under the Orissa Act shall respectively stand transferred to and be disposed of by the Collector or the Court M the case may be, as defined in the Central Act. Accordingly the Collector, Sundergarh continued further proceedings in the matter and in due course passed an Award u/s II of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 fixing the compensation of the land at Rs. 7183.03 ps. As the owners of the acquired lands did not accept the amount, the Collector made a reference u/s 18 of the Act to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Sundergarh. Admittedly, no notice of the proceedings before the Subordinate Judge was sent to the Company, but notices were sent to the Collector, Sundergarh and owners of the land Mahammad Suleman and Mahammad Hanif. The owners of the land contended before the Court that the amount of compensation is fixed against principles of law and equity and prayed that an amount of Rs. 61,000/- may be given as compensation. The learned Subordinate Judge after bearing, fixed the total compensation at Rs. 53,276.55 ps. Aggrieved by this decision the State of Orissa acting through the Collector, Sundergarh filed F. A. No. 22 of 1964 2. O.J.C. No. 90/1964 is filed by Orissa Cement Limited stating inter alia that by the time Act 1 of 159 came into force the land acquisition proceedings were pending before the "Competent Authority" and therefore by operation of Section 4(e) of the Act, the proceedings stood transferred to the Collector and the Collector thereafter should have issued necessary notifications u/s 9(1) of the Central Act and after necessary enquiry u/s 11 of the Act should have passed an Award. It is alleged that the Collector failed to do so thereby depriving the Company to have its say before the Collector. The Award, in the circumstances, is not valid. It is further alleged that Mahammad Suleman and Mahammad Hanif did not move the Collector within the prescribed period to make a reference to the Court. The reference made by the Collector u/s 18 of the Act to the Court is therefore without jurisdiction. The Award, in the circumstances, is not valid. It is further alleged that Mahammad Suleman and Mahammad Hanif did not move the Collector within the prescribed period to make a reference to the Court. The reference made by the Collector u/s 18 of the Act to the Court is therefore without jurisdiction. It was lastly contended that as no notice was issued to the Company in the proceedings before the Subordinate Judge, the Company was deprived of its right to adduce evidence before the Court and therefore the proceedings are illegal and liable to be quashed. It is accordingly prayed that the entire proceedings commencing from the date of coming into force of the Validating Act 19 of 195 and culminating in the decree passed by the Subordinate Judge, Sundergarh be quashed. The appeal and writ petition were heard together and this order would govern both the matters. 3. It is now well settled that "any person interested" in Sections 18, 20, 21 and 50 does not include a Company for whose benefit the acquisition is made. A Division Bench of this Court held in State of Orissa Vs. Amarandra Pratap Singh and Another, . Sections 3(b), 18, 20, 21 and 50 make it clear that a company or a local authority for whose benefit the acquisition is made is not entitled to demand a reference u/s 18 and is not a necessary party to such proceedings, though it can in any proceeding before the Collector or the Court appear and adduce evidence for the purpose of determining the amount of compensation. It also follows that it has no right to file, any appeal against the judgment of the Court. The argument that without a notice of the reference being given to the company the right to appear and adduce evidence given to it becomes illusory cannot be accepted in view of the clear provision that no such company shall be entitled to demand a reference u/s 18 and since Section 20 makes no provision for issue of a notice on the company, no injustice can be said to be caused thereby. The State acquiring the land in question for the benefit of the company is to safeguard the interests of the company and to give it necessary intimation regarding the pendency of the proceeding u/s 18 for adducing evidence, if any. The State acquiring the land in question for the benefit of the company is to safeguard the interests of the company and to give it necessary intimation regarding the pendency of the proceeding u/s 18 for adducing evidence, if any. The contention of the Company that it was entitled to notice from the Court must therefore fail. 4. Regarding the contentions that after the amending Act 19 of 1959 came into force the Collector ought to have passed an Award which is alleged not to have been done, and further that the reference made by the Collector u/s 18 of the Central Act is not valid, there is no material on the record to substantiate these contentions. No such plea appears to have been raised before the learned Subordinate Judge. We cannot therefore allow such contentions to be raised here at this stage. In the circumstances, O.J.C. No. 90/1964 fails and must be dismissed, but in the circumstances, without costs. 5. We will now take up F.A. No. 22/1964. The learned Subordinate Judge has correctly enunciated the principles which should govern in fixing the valuation of the land under acquisition. As enunciated in Section 23 of the Land Acquisition, Act, 1894, the market value of the land at the date of the publication of the notification u/s (1) of the Act, which in this case is 20-6-1956, should be determined and in so doing the Court should pay due regard to the prices paid within a reasonable time in bona fide transaction of purchase of lands adjacent to or near about the land acquired and possessing similar advantages. The Collector appears to have fixed the market value of the lands acquired on the basis of the market value of the land in 1939 and has allowed 50% extra over the amount so determined which, the learned Subordinate Judge himself indicates, manifestly wrong. Three witnesses were examined by the claimant-Respondents who gave oral evidence about certain transactions relating to the purchase of lands. But the sale deeds were not produced. Exs. A. B. C. and D relate to acquisition of land from other places and relate to different years. Three witnesses were examined by the claimant-Respondents who gave oral evidence about certain transactions relating to the purchase of lands. But the sale deeds were not produced. Exs. A. B. C. and D relate to acquisition of land from other places and relate to different years. Having thus found that neither party has filed any sale deeds relating to sale of lands in the Mouza Liploi in the year 1956, the learned Subordinate Judge relied on a report which the Land Acquisition Officer had submitted to the Collector in L.A. Case No. 3/1955-56 relating to certain lands at Rajgangpur. That report was again based on information gathered from the Registration Department. The Land Acquisition Collector was not examined in this case and his report also has not been marked as exhibit. The original sale deeds on the basis of which the information was supplied were not before the Court. In the circumstances, the learned Subordinate Judge was not at all justified in basing his finding on the report of the Land Acquisition Collector. Both the parties therefore prayed that the case may be remitted back to the Subordinate Judge for rehearing on the question of the quantum of compensation only after giving an opportunity to all parties to adduce fresh evidence. In the circumstances detailed above we feel that it would be in the interest of justice that this case should be remitted back to the learned Subordinate Judge for disposal according to law. 6. We accordingly allow this appeal set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Subordinate Judge and remit the case back to him for disposal according to law and in the light of observation made above. Costs will abide the result O.J.C. No. 90/1964 is dismissed, but in the circumstances, without costs. Final Result : Allowed