JUDGMENT : S.C. Mohapatra, J. - Award of compensation u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') at a rate higher than that offered by the Land Acquisition Collector is the subject matter of challenge in this appeal u/s 54 of the Act. 2. For the Sponge Iron Factory, State Government acquired 42 acres 66 decimals of land in village Nuagaon of Keonjhar district belonging to private persons. This area included 2 acres 40 decimals of Sarada II land and 2 decimals of Sarada-I land of the claimants. Notification u/s 4(1) of the Act for such acquisition was published in the official gazette on 31-7-1979. Collector offered compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,660/- per acre of Sarada-II land and Rs. 2.200/- per acre of Sarada-I land. Claimants were not satisfied with the rate and claimed compensation at rates between Rs. 300/- and Rs. 500/- per decimal. At their instance reference u/s 18 of the Act was made to the Court for determining the market value of the land. Claimants examined three witnesses and exhibited tour sale deeds in support of their claim. Trial Court on consideration of the materials held that the market value of both the categories of the land would be Rs. 10,000/- per acre which is assailed in this appeal. 3. Learned Advocate General submitted that claimants in reference u/s 18 of the Act are in the position of the Plaintiffs and onus lies on them to prove that the rate at which compensation was offered is low and that they are entitled to compensation at a higher race claimed by them, on the materials available. According to learned Advocate General claimants have not been able to discharge the onus and accordingly, the award of, the trial Court has become vulnerable. 4. Trial Court has relied upon the notes of the Editor in Collector, Cuttack v. Biswambar Pati and Ors. 46 (1978) C.L.T. 41. Notes of decisions are not precedents to have either persuasive or binding effect. In case, trial Court would have made slight endeavour with the assistance of the members of the bar, it would have been able to find out that the said decision has been reported in Collector, Cuttack v. Biswambar Pati and Ors. ILR (1978) Cutt. 966. Notes of decisions are not precedents to have either persuasive or binding effect. In case, trial Court would have made slight endeavour with the assistance of the members of the bar, it would have been able to find out that the said decision has been reported in Collector, Cuttack v. Biswambar Pati and Ors. ILR (1978) Cutt. 966. It has become a common feature for the Presiding Officers now-a-days not to reflect the decisions correctly and they do not give details of the reported decision. Each journal has a mode of citation. A reported decision should reflect the correct mode of citation. It should also reflect the names of parties. Where with reference to a journal the Court whose decision has been reported cannot be known the same of the Court should also be mentioned: This slight care on the part of the Presiding Officers would save much time and energy when their decisions are subject matter of consideration at a later time. 5. In the Division Bench decision reported in Collector, Cuttack's case2 (supra) it has been observed that the authority charged with' the duty to award compensation is bound to make an estimate judged by an objective standard. The land acquired has to be valued not only with reference to its condition at the time of declaration u/s 4, but its potential value also must be taken into account. It has been further observed "In determining the market value reliance has to be, placed on: (a) Such transactions as would afford a guide to fix the price: (b) Price paid for lands or about the time of notification u/s 4 of the Act or within a reasonable time thereof in bona fide transactions of purchase of land adjacent to the lands acquired and possessing advantages similar to these of the land acquired; (c) Sale deeds in respect of lands comparable in pointof time and quality with the lands acquired: and (d) Awards of a Court of comparable dates in respect of such lands. Such awards are not only relevant but are of better evidentiary value as it has the' merit of the objective assessment of the market value on the basis of relevant evidence. At another place of the decision a few lines thereafter, it was again observed- ... Such awards are not only relevant but are of better evidentiary value as it has the' merit of the objective assessment of the market value on the basis of relevant evidence. At another place of the decision a few lines thereafter, it was again observed- ... In considering as to whether the lands covered by sale deeds possess advantages similar to those of the acquired lands various factors have to be considered inter alia, (i) whether the lands are continuously situated, (ii) classification of land and size and shape of the land which has relevance to the question of utility to which the land is likely to be put in near future. (iv) location of the land under computable sale deeds, (v) if such lands about any road, it would naturally fetch higher price than if it is land-locked or it is far away from the road, and (vi) transaction in respect of small plots can afford to real assistance and cannot be considered as safe guide when a large plot is to be valued. 6. The impugned award has, become vulnerable since the trial Court has not taken into consideration these principles. It has failed to take note of the date of publication of the Notification in Section 4(1) of the Act. In awards, u/s 18 of the Act trial Court is to indicate the date of publication of such notification since the same is the basis for the purpose of determining the market value of the land acquired. While distinguishing the sale deeds Exts. 1 to 4. it has taken them into consideration without indicating the reason therefor to determine a higher rate of market value of the acquired land. 7. For the purpose of determining the market value of the land potential value is to be taken into consideration. No evidence has been led in the present case for determining the potential value. In oral evidence however, it has been indicated that the village in which acquired land is situated, is at a distance of about 4 k.m. from Jhumpura an important village for trade and commerce. It has further been revealed that acquired land is about 1000 cubits from the main road being separated by a forest. Acquired land is agricultural land. Under the provisions of the Orissa Land Reforms Act, agricultural land cannot be converted to, use for any other purpose. It has further been revealed that acquired land is about 1000 cubits from the main road being separated by a forest. Acquired land is agricultural land. Under the provisions of the Orissa Land Reforms Act, agricultural land cannot be converted to, use for any other purpose. Thus, the purpose for which the acquired land would have been used by the claimants would have been only agriculture and nothing else. Under the Orissa Forest Act, 1972, restriction has been imposed for cutting any trees from forest. Thus, there was no scope for the claimants to lay a road in the forest to approach directly the land acquired from the road. These disadvantages would reduce the value of the land rather than having potential value. 8. Three witnesses examined by the claimants are neither vendor nor purchaser in any of the sale deeds Exts. 1 to 4. They have also not stated the circumstances under which the considerations were paid by the vendors for purchases of the lands under the sale deeds in this background, oral and documentary evidence in the case would not be direct evidence for the purpose of determining the market value of the land. Exts. 1 to 4 are between the years 1972 to 1981. Although they are not the direct evidence they would give an idea of the value of land in the area at the time of transactions. Presiding Officers of Courts ought not to act as mere computers. They are to call in aid their experience in life and test the materials brought to record on the basis of principles laid down by interpretation in precedents. To this extent reasonable guess work with available guidance from the materials is permissible. Keeping the same in view and the principles observed by the Division Bench in the decision reported in Collector, Cuttack's case2 (supra) it is to be examined whether the claimants have been able to discharge the onus and to determine the market value of the land in case it is held that the onus has been discharged. 9. Onus can be discharged by direct or circumstantial evidence. Exts. I to 4 though are not direct evidence as has been held earlier clearly give an idea about the value of land in the area between the period 1972 and 1981. In Ext. 3 of the year 1972.3 decimals of Goda I land were sold for Rs. 9. Onus can be discharged by direct or circumstantial evidence. Exts. I to 4 though are not direct evidence as has been held earlier clearly give an idea about the value of land in the area between the period 1972 and 1981. In Ext. 3 of the year 1972.3 decimals of Goda I land were sold for Rs. 1.000/- at a rate of about Rs. 333/- per decimal or Rs. 33,300/- per acre. In Ext. 2 of the year 1974 one decimal of land was sold at Rs. 1.000/- which comes to Rs. one lakh per acre. In Ext. 4 of the year 1977. 8 decimals of land was sold for Rs. 4,000/- ' RI;. 500/- per decimal or Rs. 50,000/- per acre. In Ext. 1 of the year 1981, 10 decimals of land were sold at Rs. 3,100/- ' R5. 300/- per decimal or Rs. 30,000/- per acre. In all these sale deeds transactions were in respect of small areas. A purchaser would not be willing to pay for a large area at the same rate which he would be willing to pay for a small area. See The Collector of Lakhimpur Vs. Bhuban Chandra Dutta, and Neelakantha Roy and Ors. v. State of Orissa 34 (1968) C.L.T. 863, However, these rates would give an idea that there is gradual rise in price of land and it cannot be held that in the year 1979, the, market value of the land would be as low as Rs. 1.660/- and Rs. 2,200/- per acre. On these materials I can safely conclude that the claimants have been able to discharge the onus that the valuation offered by the Collector is low and they are entitled to higher compensation. 10. It is true that the sale deeds Exts. 1 to 4 are not direct evidence and claimants would not be entitled to compensation at the rates available in those sale deeds. Merely because claimants are not able to prove that the rate at which they claim is not the exact market value of the land it cannot be held that they are, not entitled to any higher compensation. In such Circumstances, Court can make a reasonable guess work. Ext. 1 being of the, year 1981 subsequent to the date of Publication of the notification u/s 4(1) of the' Act can be left out of consideration. Ext. In such Circumstances, Court can make a reasonable guess work. Ext. 1 being of the, year 1981 subsequent to the date of Publication of the notification u/s 4(1) of the' Act can be left out of consideration. Ext. 2 being in respect of one decimal of land can also be left out of consideration. Exes. 3 and 4 can however, be taken into consideration. There is no doubt that Ext.. 3 of the year 197.2 is In respect of only 3 decimals of Goda-I land and Ext. 4 of the year 1977 In respect of only 8, decimals of land which does not disclose the nature of the land. However, from these two documents, it is clear that small plots were being sold at the rates between Rs. 300 to 500 per decimal between 1972 and 1977. Land in Ext. 3 is adjacent to the main road as is seen from the description of boundaries of the land sold. Land in Ext. 4 is also adjacent to the road as is seen from the description of the boundaries. It can thus be guessed that for such lands, sold in small plots a purchaser in the year 1979 would be willing to pay ' Rs. 700 per decimal. However, such purchaser while purchasing similar lands in large plots of acres would not pay a consideration at the same rate, it would be drastically low which can reasonably be guessed to be at the rate of Rs. 20,000/- per acre or Rs. 200 per decimal. The land under Exes. 3 and 4 are capable of being used as house sites and are near road. Acquired land having no such advantage and having disadvantage of statutory restrictions would not be purchased willingly by paying more than Rs. 8,000/- per acre in the year ]979. Accordingly. I am inclined to hold that the market value of the acquired land would be Rs. 80/ per decimal or Rs. 8.000/- per acre. I may make it clear that both the parties have not challenged that 'the same rate made available to both the categories of land by trial Court will also be available in this appeal. Accordingly, market value is to be determined at the same rate. 11. During pendency of this appeal, the Act has been amended by. Act 68 of 1984 giving better statutory benefits to the claimants. Accordingly, market value is to be determined at the same rate. 11. During pendency of this appeal, the Act has been amended by. Act 68 of 1984 giving better statutory benefits to the claimants. Accordingly, claimants are entitled to permissible benefits under the Act as amended by Act 68 of 1984. 12. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. There shall be no order as to costs. 13. Appeal allowed in part. Final Result : Allowed