S. C. MOHAPATRA, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by the Land Acquisition Officer. There is no cross-objection. ( 2 ) WHEN this appeal was listed for orders regarding preparation of paper books, I found that the appeal in view of its valuation is to be heard by a single Judge. Since records of lower court are available I directed the appeal to be listed for final disposal on merits. ( 3 ) NOTIFICATIONS under Section 4 (1) of the Act were published in Orissa Gazette Extraordinary No. 1398 dated 24-10-1983 for compulsory acquisition of near about 150 acres in different revenue villages for the Union Government for establishment of interim test range. 11. 17 acres of land in village Karanjia were proposed to be acquired. On that basis 71 decimals of land in Plot Nos. 325 and 326 belonging to the claimants were acquired. Basing on Sale statistics collected, Land Acquisition Officer offered compensation at the rate of Rs. 80,000/- per acre. Claimant received the compensation under protest stating that land being within Balasore Municipality the market value is much higher. Land Acquisition Officer on that account made a reference to Court for determination of market value. ( 4 ) CLAIMANT examined her son as P. W. 1 and produced two sale deeds of the year 1984 and 1985 marked as Exts. 2 and 3. She also produced certified copy of a previous award in respect of acquisition of land of another owner. Land Acquisition Officer produced the Sales Statistics collected by him from the office of the Sub-Registrar. On consideration of these materials trial Court determined market value at Rs. 1,10,000/- per acre. ( 5 ) LAND Acquisition Officer has treated lands of all the revenue villages acquired to be having similar advantages for which he offered compensation at the rate of Rupees 80,000/- per acre. In respect of adjacent village Kasimbag where slightly more than 14 acres of land was acquired, this Court in a Division Bench in First Appeal No. 7 of 1988 decided on 26-2-1990 (Sarat Chandra Mohapatra v. Land Acquisition Collector) held that market value of land acquired is Rs. 90,000/- per acre. In respect of adjacent village Kasimbag where slightly more than 14 acres of land was acquired, this Court in a Division Bench in First Appeal No. 7 of 1988 decided on 26-2-1990 (Sarat Chandra Mohapatra v. Land Acquisition Collector) held that market value of land acquired is Rs. 90,000/- per acre. This is an award in respect of land having similar advantages acquired under notification of the same day published in the same issue of Extraordinary Gazette. Accordingly, this appellate order is the best piece of evidence available. Hence market value is determined in this appeal at Rs. 90,000/- per acre. ( 6 ) ADDED to the market value, claimant is entitled to the permissible statutory benefits as admissible by Act 68 of 1984. ( 7 ) IT is found from the record that appellant had not complied with the requirement of Order 41, Rule 1 (3), C. P. C. to deposit the amount under award. When respondent proceeded to execute the award, an application of stay under Order 41, Rule 5, C. P. C. was filed. Learned Registrar who is vested with powers to deal with such application under Rules of the Court granted interim stay subject to deposit of half of the amount under execution. In view of clear mandate under Order 41, Rule 5 (3), C. P. C. , since no satisfaction as required under (a) to (c) thereunder has been recorded. Besides, the order of stay was ex parte. An ex parte order can be passed as envisaged under sub-rule (4) which is subject to the provisions under sub-rule (3 ). These two sub-rules (3) and (4) are extracted for appreciating my observation. They read as follows :- order 41, R. 5 " (3) No order for stay of execution shall be made under sub-rule (1) or sub-rule (2) unless the Court making it is satisfied - (A) that substantial loss may result to the party applying for stay of execution unless the order is made; (B) that the application has been made without unreasonable delay; and (C) that security has been given by the applicant for the due performance of such decree or order as may ultimately be binding upon him. (4) Subject to the provision of sub-rule (3), the Court may make an ex parte order for stay of execution pending the hearing of the application. (4) Subject to the provision of sub-rule (3), the Court may make an ex parte order for stay of execution pending the hearing of the application. " ( 8 ) IT is seen that in a subsequent order, learned Registrar has modified the order on application of the respondent directing that respondent would be at liberty to withdraw the amount deposited without furnishing security. No care has been taken to protect interest of the appellant to meet a contingency where the appeal would be allowed and respondent would (sic) be entitled to the enhanced amount at all. While passing interim order, interest of both parties are to be protected. ( 9 ) IN result, appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs. Appeal partly allowed.