JUDGMENT : S.C. Mohapatra, J. - Claimant is the Appellant in this appeal u/s 54 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against an award in a reference u/s 18 of the Act. 2. On 26-3-1985, Notification u/s 4(1) of the Act was published for acquisition of land in revenue village Nayapalli in New Capital within Bhubaneswar Municipality for extension of "Bidyut Marg" in New-capital. On that basis, 120 decimals (1 acre = 1000 decimals) of land of the claimant was acquired. Land Acquisition Collector offered compensation for the acquired land at the rate of rupees one lakh per acre. Claimant protested against the low valuation demanding compensation for the land at the rate of rupees ten lakhs per acre. He also demanded rupees two lakhs for the building over the land, Rs. 35,000/- on account of fragmentation making the remaining 65 decimals useless and one lakh rupees for the potential value of the land. At his instance, reference was made to the Court u/s 18 of the Act. 3. In the trial Court, claimant examined two witnesses including himself and prove three sale deeds to prove the prevailing market value and potential value of the land. He proved entry in the register of Municipality in support of his case that he applied for sanction of the plan for the building. Another entry in Municipal register was proved in support of his case that he reminded the Chairman about his application for sanction of the plan. Refusal of the plan by the Bhubaneswar Development Authority has been proved. Valuation of the building has been proved by copy of a report given by the Executive Engineer. Land Acquisition Collector examined one witness. 4. Trial Court on consideration of the materials on record held that market value of the land per acre would be at Rs. 1,66,000/- per acre. Be did not award as compensation for potential value or for fragmentation. As regards building, trial Court held that the same having been constructed without permission and in violation of the Municipal laws, claimant is not entitled to any compensation. Aggrieved by the same, claimant has preferred this appeal. No cross-objection has been filed by the Land Acquisition Collector. 5. There is no dispute that claimant is owner of the land. As regards building, trial Court held that the same having been constructed without permission and in violation of the Municipal laws, claimant is not entitled to any compensation. Aggrieved by the same, claimant has preferred this appeal. No cross-objection has been filed by the Land Acquisition Collector. 5. There is no dispute that claimant is owner of the land. He purchased it in the year 1981 under two sale-deeds Although the sale deeds have not been marked as exhibits claimant had produced the same in the trial Court on 13-2-1987 which are in the record of the lower Court. They reveal that he purchased 90 decimals of land as per registered sale deed dated 30-3-1987 for a consideration of Rs. 10,000/- only from Tridandi Swami Sri mat Bhakti Sraban Tirtha Goswami. Sale deed indicates that getting sanction of building plan from the Municipality the vendor had constructed stone boundary wall and had raised construction of the plinth. On the other registered sale deed dated 2-11-1981, 95 decimals of land adjacent to the earlier one was purchased by the claimant for a consideration of Rs. 10,000/-. Thus, 185 decimals of land with stone boundary wall and plinth of a building was purchased by the claimant in the year 1981 for a consideration of Rs. 20,000/-. 6. Ext. 7 is a sale transaction of 60 decimals of land on 18-12-1985 for a consideration of Rs. 36,000/- in Budheswari Colony area. Ext. 8 relates to a sale transaction of 13-8-1985 registered on 1-2-1986 of 39 decimals for a consideration of Rs. 22,500/-. This land is situated in revenue village Nayapalli. Ext. 9 relates to another sale deed for 39 decimals for a consideration of Rs. 22,500/- executed on 1-2-1986. Trial Court has not relied upon Exts. 7, 8 and 9 as they relate to Gharbari lands whereas, the acquired land has been recorded as Sarada land. Learned Counsel for the Appellant rightly submitted that in the present case there being no dispute that there was a building over the acquired land, the difference made out by the trial Court is not correct. We are inclined to hold that the land is a home site. But Exts. 7, 8 and 9 are subsequent to the notification made u/s 4(1) of the Act and on that ground they have no utility. We are inclined to hold that the land is a home site. But Exts. 7, 8 and 9 are subsequent to the notification made u/s 4(1) of the Act and on that ground they have no utility. In absence of any other evidence, trial Court relied upon the sale figures collected by the Land Acquisition Officer and determined the rate at which land having similar advantageous were being sold to be Rs. 1,66,000/-. When in 1981, claimant himself purchased the acquired land at a rate slightly higher than rupees one lakh per acre and does not explain that for special reasons he gave low consideration, taking into consideration that in urban areas value of land is increasing year to year without any material in support of the rate of rise in price determination of market value of the land at Rs. 1,66,000/- per acre, four years after the purchase, is not low. We are inclined to accept the rate as fixed by the trial Court. Since we are confirming the finding on account of absence of cross-objection, this determination cannot be used as precedent in future. 7. Increase in the rate of land is on account of its potentiality. Accordingly, no separate compensation is to be paid for potentiality of the land in this case and trial Court has rightly refused the same. 8. Claimant demanded Rs. 35,000/- towards fragmentation of 15 decimals of land which is said to be a triangular shape and thus, has become useless. Fifteen decimals of homestead land cannot be said to be useless for purpose of construction. No expert has been examined to support the demand of the claimant. In that view, trial Court was justified in rejecting the claim in that regard, we confirm the same. 9. Most important question in this case is the correctness of the finding of the trial Court refusing any compensation for the building. Trial Court refused compensation on the ground that there was no municipal sanction for construction of the building. Claimant who is in the position of a Plaintiff is required to prove that he is entitled to compensation for the building on the acquired land. In this respect, at the earliest opportunity he made a claim of rupees two lakhs before the Land Acquisition Collector when the latter did not award any compensation. Claimant who is in the position of a Plaintiff is required to prove that he is entitled to compensation for the building on the acquired land. In this respect, at the earliest opportunity he made a claim of rupees two lakhs before the Land Acquisition Collector when the latter did not award any compensation. In his petition before the Land Acquisition Officer claimant stated that the land and half constructed house was given to him under registered sale-deed dated 30-3-1981 for the purpose of having a residential house of his own. As has been stated earlier, the sale-deed is on record though not marked as exhibit. It discloses that the land measuring 90 decimals with stone compound wall and plinth of a building having the plan approved by the Municipality was being sold. P.W. 2 the claimant in his deposition stated that he purchased 90 decimals land with compound wall and half constructed building. On the date of deposition, claimant was Additional Superintendent of Police. In his petition before the Land Acquisition Collector he stated that he made a loan of rupees one lakh for construction of the building which was completed in 1982. Claimant sought to prove that he submitted the building plan on 11-1-1982. He relied upon the entry of receipt of such plan in the register of Municipality. Trial Court disbelieved the entry (Ext. 1) as suspicious. Witness who produced the register was not the person who made the entry and no explanation was given to eradicate the suspicion. Person making the entry though in service was not examined. We also find that the entry is suspicious and no reliance can be placed on it. Similar is the entry in another register proved to believe that claimant made an application before the Chairman of the Municipality objecting to the in-action for approval of the plan submitted. This entry is also suspicious and has rightly been disbelieved by the trial Court. Claimant in his petition stated that the construction of the building has been completed since 1982. No explanation has been given why no steps were taken to get the same assessed to tax by the Municipality. An application has been filed to admit some documents as additional evidence. Those documents were in possession of the claimant during pendency of the reference proceeding. No acceptable explanation has been given why the same would not be proved. No explanation has been given why no steps were taken to get the same assessed to tax by the Municipality. An application has been filed to admit some documents as additional evidence. Those documents were in possession of the claimant during pendency of the reference proceeding. No acceptable explanation has been given why the same would not be proved. Those documents would not also be of much assistance to prove the claim without further evidence. Learned Counsel for the claimant submitted that inaction of the Municipality is not approving or rejecting the plan is deemed to have the force of approval under the Orissa Municipal Act. When submission of the plan before construction is not accepted, the statutory provision would be of no assistance to the claimant. There is no explanation why claimant occupying a high status of Superintendent of Police did not get the building assessed asserting that plan had been deemed to be approved. This creates a doubt about any application being made before construction of the building. 10. Be that as it may, Land Acquisition Collector did not make any enquiry about the existence of a building on the acquired land and has not given any reason why no compensation was paid. Even in the sale deed in favour of the claimant, there is statement that there was a stone compound wall and half constructed building made with approval of plan of Municipality. In case in 1981 90 decimals of land with such construction was purchased for a paltry sum of Rs. 10,000/- only, in absence of any other evidence the same would be a material evidence for assessing compensation. There is no evidence as to the area of plinth constructed at the time of purchase. In such circumstance, claimant is entitled to some compensation for the building. 11. Construction without permission is only a factor for reducing the value since statutory authorities have power to direct demolition of such structure and in case the owner does not so demolish, authorities have power to get it demolished and realise cost from the owner. In case owner of a building demolishes the structure, he is entitled to salvage the materials used which has some value. He has to spend some amount to demolish the structure also. There is, however, no prohibition for the statutory authorities to give post-facto approval. In case owner of a building demolishes the structure, he is entitled to salvage the materials used which has some value. He has to spend some amount to demolish the structure also. There is, however, no prohibition for the statutory authorities to give post-facto approval. A bona fide purchaser willing to purchase the land and building with such defects or deficiencies, will not pay the market value for the building but shall reduce the same. Under Ext. 6, the Executive Engineer has assessed the value of the building at Rs. 1,73,375/-. Claimant stated in his petition that he made a loan of Rs. 1,00,000/- for constructing the building. In absence of any other material, we are inclined to hold that claimant shall be entitled to rupees one lakh as compensation for the building. 12. In conclusion, claimant is entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,66,000/- per acre of land and Rs. 1,00,000/- for the building. Added to it, he shall be entitled to permissible benefits under the Act as amended by Act 68 of 1984. 13. In the result, appeal is allowed in part. There shall be no order as to costs. V. Gopalaswamy, J. I agree. Appeal allowed in part. Final Result : Allowed