Judgment S.B. SINHA, J. This first appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 14.4.1977 passed by Shri M.K. Verma, Subordinate Judge, Ranchi in L.A. Case No. 93 of 1974 whereby and whereunder the said learned court allowed the application in part filed by the appellants under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, in part. 2. Admittedly, a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, was issued on 28.8.1971 whereby and whereunder the land in question namely 30 decimals of lands situate in Ward Nos. 5 and 6 of Doranda within Ranchi Municipality was fought to be acquired. A declaration under Section 6 of the said Act, was issued on 15.11.1971. 3. The land in question is in two blocks i.e. Plot No. 2631/1 being House Bari measuring an area of 98 karies and Block No. B, Plot No. 2631/2 measuring an area of 202 karies, thus measuring a total area of 300 karies; which is equivalent to 30 decimals of land. 4. The learned Land Acquisition Judge has granted compensation @ Rs. 66, 550/-per acre in respect of plot no. 2631/1 and compensation @ Rs. 39, 930-in respect of plot No 2631/2. 5. According to the appellants, the lands in question is situate in the heart of the town and a commercial area. It is further alleged that there are shops on both sides of the road and the land in question is very near to the Railway Station and depot belonging to the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation. According to the appellants, the lands in question have potential value as the same was on the side of main road. In fact, the land in question was acquired for construction of an over bridge. 6. The appellants claimed compensation for a sum of Rs. One Jack only. However, the learned court below granted, upon consideration of the evidences on record; a sum of Rs. 23500/-, apart from the statutory solatium and interest. This appeal is valued at Rs. 66, 500/-. 7. Mr. N. K. Prasad, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, submitted that in view of the fact that a deed of sale dated 14.12.1982 (Ext. 5/A) was proved on behalf of the appellants wherefrom it would appear that is Kathas 12 ½ dhoors of land, were sold for a sum of Rs. 66, 500/-. 7. Mr. N. K. Prasad, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, submitted that in view of the fact that a deed of sale dated 14.12.1982 (Ext. 5/A) was proved on behalf of the appellants wherefrom it would appear that is Kathas 12 ½ dhoors of land, were sold for a sum of Rs. 55,000/-the learned court below ought to have held that compensation shall be awarded for acquisition of the land in question @ Rs. 10, 000/- per katha. 8. The learned counsel further submitted that it is true that by reason of Ext. 5/B which is a sale deed of the year 1971, the land which was the subject matter of the said sale deed was sold a Rs.15,00/- per katha but there are evidences to show that the said land was situate at a place far away from the main road. 9. The learned counsel, therefore, submitted that the valuation of the land situate in a commercial area being near to the Railway station and the bus depot of the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation and that too by the side of the main road cannot be equated with the value of the land which is situate far away from the main road and for approaching the same, a road had to be specially constructed as per evidence of C. W. 9. 10. It appears that the learned Land Acquisition Officer as also the learned Land Acquisition Judge relied upon a rate report (Ext. A). 11. From the judgment of the learned court below, it appears that he did not accept the valuation as reflected in Ext. 5/A only on the ground that the said deed of sale was executed more than 3 years prior to the date of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. 12. In my opinion, the learned court below was not correct in his approach. It is now well settled by various decisions of the Supreme Court of India as also this Court that valuation of a land in a Land Acquisition Proceeding should be computed on the basis of the sale deeds which has been executed in respect of the lands at about the time when the notification under Section 4 of the Act, was issued. However, in absence such It document, the court has to consider all the available documents and in computing the market value of the property, some amount of guess work is inevitable. 13. In this view of the matter, in my opinion it cannot be said that Ext. 5/ A wail wholly in admissible in evidence, 14. It further appears that the learned court below has sought to compute the value of the land upon taking an average of the valuation of the land as found by the Land Acquisition Officer and the valuation as is reflected in Ext. 5/E. 15. It is now well settled that a rate report is not admissible in evidence if the maker thereof has not been examined. 16. It is further well known that even when a sale deed is brought on record, normally the purchaser or the vendor should be examined so as to ascertain their intention with regard to the price of the land which they though fit would be proper for the transfer of the properties in question. Reference in this connection may be made to A.I.R. 1989 Supreme Court page 2051 (Mehta Revindrarai Ajitrai (deceased by L. Rs.) and others Vs. State of Gujarat) 17. In Ahmad Yar Jung Vs. Collector, Land Acquisition, Hyderabad reported in 1974 Supreme Court Page 787, the Supreme Court held that where there was little evidence with regard to the valuation of the land, some guess work is inevitable. 18. In Smt. Tribeni Devi & others Vs. Collector of Ranchi & others reported in 1972 P. L. J. R. page 509 (S. C.) the Supreme Court laid down the criteria upon which the court should pass its decisions in computing of the value of the land in the following terms:- "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, but as this may not be possible to ascertain with any amount of precision, the authority charged with the duty to award compensation is bound to make an estimate judged by an objective standard. The land acquired has therefore, to be valued not only with reference to its condition at the time of the declaration under Section 4 of the Act, but its potential value also must be taken into account...... ... The land acquired has therefore, to be valued not only with reference to its condition at the time of the declaration under Section 4 of the Act, but its potential value also must be taken into account...... ... (as indicated earlier) the methods of valuation to be adopted in ascertaining the market value of the land on the date of the notification under Section 4 (1) are (i) opinion of experts, (ii) the price paid within a reasonable time in bonafide transactions of purchase of the lands acquired and possessing similar advantages; and (iii) a number of years, however, do not preclude the Court from taking any other special circum stances into consideration, the requirement being always to arrive as near as possible an estimate of the market value". 19. Taking thus, all aspects of the matter, into consideration, in my opinion, as no deed of sale has been proved with regard to the lands near about the land in question, it will be just and proper to award in the facts and circumstances of the case and regard being had to the fact with the land in question is by the side of the Main road and is further near the Railway Station, Bus stand and other important offices and having great commercial value @ Rs. 2,590/-per decimals which will meet the ends of justice. 20. Further, it is an admitted fact that the plaintiff has suffered damages owing to inconvenience caused to him by reason of severance from the home of the land which has been acquired. In terms of Section 23 (4) of the Land Acquisition injuriously affecting his other property movable or immovable at the time of Collectors’ taking possession there of. The appellant categorically stated that he has his residential house just by the side of the land acquired and it has further been staled that in view of the aforementioned acquisition of land, the approach road has narrowed down. The appellant in his evidence has further stated about various other inconveniences which were being faced by him in view of the acquisition of the front portion of his house. It has further been brought on record, there would be no road infront of the house of the appellant and an approach road has to be constructed. The appellant in his evidence has further stated about various other inconveniences which were being faced by him in view of the acquisition of the front portion of his house. It has further been brought on record, there would be no road infront of the house of the appellant and an approach road has to be constructed. This aspect of the matter is also evident from the report of the Engineer (Ext.2) as also the Pleader Commissioners report (Ext.7). It is now well known that for the purpose of computation of the value in a Land Acquisition proceeding as also for considering the injuries/damage suffered by a person in respect of enjoyment of his other properties, opinion of an expert is admissible in evidence. Reference in this connection may be made to Collector, Jabalpur and another Vs. Nawab Ahmad Yar Jahangir Khan reported in A.I.R 1971 Madhya Pradesh page 32. 21. In Smt. Tribeni Devi and others Vs. The Collector, Ranchi reported in A.I.R. 1972 Supreme Court page 1417, it was held by the Supreme Court that normally the applicant is entitled to a further sum of Rs. 10% of the value of the land in respect of the injuries that has been suffered by the appellant because of severance of holding. 22. In this view of the matter, in my opinion, apart from the peace of the land, the appellant is also entitled to 10% of the sum awarded to him calculated in manner as mentioned herein before towards injuries caused to him by reason of severance of the holding. 23. It is needless to say that the appellants shall also be entitled to solatium @ Rs.15% per annum on the aforementioned value as also interest @ Rs 6% per annum from the date of taking possession of the said land i.e. 25.10.72 till realisation thereof. 24. In the result, the appeal is allowed to the extent mentioned hereinbefore. 25. In the facts and circumstances of this case, the appellant shall also be entitled to the costs of this appeal. HP Appeal allowed.