ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. ( 1 ) THESE two appeals are directed against the judgments of the learned Subordinate Judge, Berhmapur under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short 'the Act') in respect of lands acquired for the purpose of construction of bus stand and station office etc. by the Orissa Road Transport Company Limited, Berhampur by declaration No. 31354 dated 28-4-1976 published in Part III of the Orissa Gazette Extraordinary No. 717 dated 4-5-1976. Respondent in each case was the land owner. The extent of land acquired in respect of Smt. Mahalakshmi Panda is Ac 0. 171 decimals whereas in respect of Smt. Mahalakshmi Panigrahi it is Ac. 0. 267 decimals. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed the rate at Rs. 48,000/- per acre. The claimants claimed higher compensation and accordingly the matter was referred to the learned Subordinate Judge under S. 18 of the Act. ( 2 ) THE dispute in these appeals relate to the reasonableness of the prices fixed by the learned Subordinate Judge in respect of the lands acquired and, therefore, the appeals were heard together. ( 3 ) THE learned trial Judge fixed the rate at Rs. 70,000/- per acre. According to him, the sale statistics, Exts. A and B in F. A. Nos. 130 and 139 of 1987 respectively, provided by acquiring authority to fix the quantum as aforesaid, was not acceptable. The learned counsel for the State submitted that the sale statistics furnished by the acquiring authority that the sale statistics furnished by the acquiring authority have been discarded without any reasonable basis. It is further submitted that the exhibits regarding sale-deeds relied on by the learned trial Judge relate to a very small piece of land and, therefore, they do not provide safe guidelines. The learned counsel for the claimants on the other hand supported the award. ( 4 ) WHERE large area is the subject-matter of acquisition, rate at which small plots are sold cannot be said to be a safe criteria. Reference in this context may be made to three decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1971 SC 1015 : The Collector of Lakhimpur v. Bhaban Chandra Dutta, AIR 1977 SC 1560 : Prithvi Raj Tansia (dead) by L. Rs. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and another and AIR 1984 SC 897, Smt. Kausalya Devi Nagra and others etc. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and another and AIR 1984 SC 897, Smt. Kausalya Devi Nagra and others etc. v. Land Acquisition Officer, Aurangabad and another. ( 5 ) IT cannot, however, he laid down as an absolute proposition that the rates fixed for the small plots cannot be the basis for fixation of the rate. For example, where there is no other material it may in appropriate cases be open to the adjudicating Court to make comparison of the prices paid for small plots of land. However, in such cases necessary deduction/adjustments have to be made while determining the prices. See AIR 1973 Bom 231 : The State of Maharashtra (Public Works Department) v. Bapurao Devendra Chiddaryar and others), 1983 MPLJ (Notes) 372 : State of M. P. v. Nagar Palika, Mandsaur, and ILR (1979) 2 Delhi 122 : Ujjal Singh v. Union of India and others. ( 6 ) IN the case of Suresh Kumar v. Town Improvement Trust, Bhopal, reported in 1989 (I) SVLR (C) 399 in a case under the Madhya Pradesh Town Improvement Trust Act, 1960. Hon'ble Court held that the rates paid for small parcels of land do not provide a useful guide for determining the market value of the land acquired. Similarly, the ratio of the decision reported in AIR 1982 SC 876 (supra) is of no assistance to the claimants because there is no evidence led by the claimants that there was no fluctuation of rates. In fact the evidence of the witnesses of the claimants is squarely silent on this aspect. On perusal of the evidence, we find that there was no adequate material before the learned Subordinate Judge for fixation of the rates. While determining the market value of the land acquired it has to be correctly determined and paid so that there is neither unjust enrichment on the part of the acquirer nor undue deprivation on the part of the owner. It is submitted on behalf of the claimants that the admitted position being that the land acquired was in the heart of Sulkigopal town is the close proximity of the bus stand, railway station and the temple and the potential value of the land being such more, the learned Subordinate Judge did not err in awarding the compensation as has been done. It is an accepted principle as laid down in the case of Vyrigherla Narayana Gajnpatriraju v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakapatnam, AIR 1939 PC 98 that the compensation must be determined by reference to the price which a willing vendor might reasonably except to require from a willing purchaser. While considering the market value disinclination of the vendor to part with his land and the urgent necessity of the purchaser to buy it must alike be disregarded. Neither must be considered as acting under any compulsion. The value of the land is not to be estimated on its value to the purchaser. But similarly this does not mean that the fact that some particular purchaser might desire the land more than others is to be disregarded. The wish of a particular purchaser, though not his compulsion, may always be taken into consideration for what it is worth. The vendor is to be treated as a vendor willing to sell at the market price. Section 23 of the Act enumerates the matters to be considered in determining compensation. The first criteria to be taken into consideration is the market value of the land on the date of the publication of the notification under Sec. 4 (1 ). Similarly S. 24 of the Act enumerates the matters which the Court shall not take into consideration in determining the compensation. A safeguard is provided in S. 25 of the Act that the amount of compensation to be awarded by the Court shall not be less than the amount awarded by the Collector under S. 11. While we are inclined to accept the contention that the value of the potentiality is to be determined on such materials as are available and without indulgence in any fits of imagination, we may point out that impractibility of determining the potential value is writ large in almost all cases. There is bound to be some amount of guess work involved while determining the potentiality. There is bound to be some amount of guess work involved while determining the potentiality. ( 7 ) IT can be broadly stated that the element of speculation is reduced to minimum is the underlying principles of fixation of market value with reference to comparable sales are made : (i) when sale is within a reasonable time of the date of notification under S. 4 (1); (ii) it should be a bona fide transaction; (iii) it should be of the land acquired or of the land adjacent to the land acquired, and (iv) it should possess similar advantages. 'it is only when these factors are present, it can merit a consideration as a consideration as a comparable case. Reference may be made to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1959 SC 429 . The Special Land Acquisition officer, Bangalore v. The Adinarayan Setty and two Bench decisions of the Andhra Pradesh High Court and Gauhati High Court reported in 1967 (1) AWR 79 : The Land Acquisition Officer and District Welfare Officer, Kakinada v. Mattapalli Venkateswami and others and AIR 1980 Gau 55 , P. G. D. Ombrain and others etc. v. Collector of Kamrup, Gauhati and another, respectively. Therefore, we do not find any fault with the learned Subordinate Judge in considering the fact that there was scope for development of the land sought to be acquired. The aspects were highlighted by a Division Bench of this Court in Land Acquisition officer, Puri v. Executive officer, Sri Satyabadi Gopinath Deb, Sakhigopal etc. , 1989 (2) OLR 17. ( 8 ) THE undisputed position is that the learned trial Judge relied on sale-deeds relating to sales of small parcels of lands. The price fetched in respect of the said lands is not a safe criteria to be adopted for fixing the compensation. At the same time, it cannot be lost sight of that the acquired land was situated close to the Medical College in the heart of Berhampur Municipality with potentiality for utilisation in various commercial purposes. It is to be noted that though claimants claim that the lands were fit for homestead purpose, it was of dry land category. Considering all these aspects. I feel fixation of rate at Rs. 60,000/- (Rupees Sixty Thousand) per acre would be just and proper. The appeals are allowed to the extent indicated above. Order accordingly.