JUDGMENT : B.K. Ray, J. - The State is the Appellant against an order of the learned Subordinate Judge. Bhubaneswar disposing of a reference u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter called the ?Act?). 2. The extent of land acquired is 0.102? acre appertaining to plot No. 2896/4117/1 khata No. 2024 in Bhubaneswar. The date of notification u/s 4(1) of the Act is 10-6-1964 and the purpose of acquisition is for Daya West Branch of canal. The Collector under his award granted Rs. 2.432.38 to the Respondents for the land at the rate of Rs 20,000/- per acre. The learned Subordinate Judge fixed the compensation at the rate of Rs. 70,000/- per acre. In addition, he awarded 25% towards the potential value together with solatium and interest at the rate of 6% p.a. 3. Learned Additional standing counsel appearing for the State, while contending that the compensation awarded by the Court below is arbitrary, specifically challenges compensation of 25% towards the potential value of the land granted by the Court below. 4. From paragraph 4 of the impugned order, it appears that the Court below, after considering the relevant documents, viz. the map (Ext. 1) showing the location of the land, an order in another land acquisition case (Ex. 2) granting compensation in respect of a piece of land adjoining the land in question and two other sale deeds (Exts. 3 and 4) showing the market price of the land in the neighbourhood at the relevant time, has fixed the compensation. I do not see any arbitrariness in the order of the learned Subordinate Judge fixing compensation for the land in question. 5. Regarding granting of an additional compensation at the rate of 25% towards the potential value, toe learned Standing counsel relying upon a decision reported in Smt. Tribeni Devi v. Collector, Ranchi 1972 S.C.D. 1065, contends that the prevailing market price accepted by toe Court below includes toe potential value. It has been held in that decision that the compensation payable to the owner of the land is the market value which is determined by reference to the price which a seller might reasonably expect to obtain from a willing purchaser and this market price includes the potential value. Thus, I find sufficient force in this contention. 6. It has been held in that decision that the compensation payable to the owner of the land is the market value which is determined by reference to the price which a seller might reasonably expect to obtain from a willing purchaser and this market price includes the potential value. Thus, I find sufficient force in this contention. 6. I, therefore, allow the appeal in part and hold that the owners of the land are not entitled to 25% an extra compensation towards the potential value of the land. The judgment of the Court below is modified accordingly. There will be no order for costs. Final Result : Allowed