P. K. TRIPATHY, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal has been preferred by the State of Orissa challenging the judgment and orders in Land Acquisition misc. Case No. 421/94 of the Court of Civil judge (Senior Division), Bhubaneswar dated 28. 9. 1996. In the impugned order, learned court below awarded compensation @ Rupees two lakhs Per acre for the lands of the respondent acquired by the Government. ( 2 ) UNDISPUTED fact in the case is that vide notification dated 8. 3. 1998 published in the orissa Gazette,under Sec. 4 (1) of the Land acquisition Act, 1894 (in short 'the Act') and subsequent Notifications under different provisions of the said Act, the State Government/ appellants acquired Ac. O. 198 decimals of land of the respondent situated in Mauza nayapalli vide Khata No. 62 and Plot No. 137. The said land was acquired for development of New-Capital and expansion of Bidyut Marg no 1. The State Government assessed the rate of compensation at the rate of rupees one lakh per acre along with other admissible benefits under the Act. Respondent challenged the market rate fixed by the Government and claimed it at the rate of rupees five lakhs per acre. Hence reference was made to the Court of Civil judge (Senior Division) in accordance with provision under Sec. 18 of the Act. ( 3 ) TO substantiate his case, respondent examined himself as P. W. 1 besides two witnesses as P. Ws. 2 and 3 and relied upon the document wide Exts, 1 to 5, out of which Exts, 2,3 and 4 are the documents relating to the valuation of the lands. Appellant examined one witness who is an Amin and relied upon Exts. A to D, i. e. , four sale deeds relating to that area regarding the market price. On assessment of the evidence, learned Civil Judge found that the documents tendered in evidence from the side of the State are not acceptable because the vendors and vendees were not examined relating to the details of the transactions including the price paid and in that respect. the evidence of O. P. W. 1 was quite deficient to make any evidentiary value regarding the marked rate of the lands sold and accordingly, he did not accept the market price in Exts. A to D. Reffering to the evidence of the P. Ws. and the Exts. the evidence of O. P. W. 1 was quite deficient to make any evidentiary value regarding the marked rate of the lands sold and accordingly, he did not accept the market price in Exts. A to D. Reffering to the evidence of the P. Ws. and the Exts. 2 and 3, the two sale deeds tendered from the side of the respondent, learned Civil Judge, accepted the same and fixed the value of the lands at the rate of rupees two lakhs per acre. In that connection, learned Civil Judge, also did not accept Ext. 4 which was an order relating to fixation of mar-ket price of another patch of land acquired by the Government at Ekamra Kanan for the reason that such land was acquired in 1984 i. e. , two years after acquisition of the case land. ( 4 ) WHILE challenging the aforesaid award of the Civil Judge, learned Additional Standing counsel appearing for the State, contends that learned Civil Judge did not properly appreciate evidentiary valueof Exts. A to D and wrongly rejected the same. His contention in that respect is not acceptable in view of the fact that learned Civil Judge rightly did not accept the said four sale deeds regarding market price because of non-examination of the vendors and the vendees or the attesting witnesses to prove the same sale transactions. Apex Court in State of U. P. and another v. Rajendra Singh, has held that "it is further settled law that the sale transactions filed in the narration of the award or documents, without examination of either the vendee or by the vendors is not evidence. " That principle was rightly followed by the Civil Judge to negative the evidence adduced from the side of the appellant. ( 5 ) LEARNED counsel appearing for the state further argues that evidence tendered by the respondent in support of elevated price was not to be accepted because Exts. 2 and 3 are two sale deeds which were for smaller patches of land. In that connection, he relies upon the ratio in the case of Smt. Padma Uppal etc. v. State of Punjab and others. In that case, a vast area of land measuring 416050 sq. yds. situated in Amritsar (Urban) and village tungbala was acquired under Section 4 (1) of the Act for expansion of the existing Medical college and allied institutions. In that connection, he relies upon the ratio in the case of Smt. Padma Uppal etc. v. State of Punjab and others. In that case, a vast area of land measuring 416050 sq. yds. situated in Amritsar (Urban) and village tungbala was acquired under Section 4 (1) of the Act for expansion of the existing Medical college and allied institutions. The Collector, amritsar classified the aforesaid area for. acquisition of compensation into two categories, viz. , the potential building area and the agricultural land. While challenging the award by the claimants as well as by the State Government, apex Court took into consideration the settled position of law, relating to the valuation as in Section 23 (1) of the Act and also the factual aspect. Apex Court relied upon the ratio in the case of Khaja Fizuddin v. State of andhra Pradesh relating to the principle which is quoted as hereunder:"under Section 23 (1) of the Act, in determining the amount of compensation, the Court shall take into consideration the market value of the land at the date of publication of the notification under sec. 4 (1) thereof. Decided cases have laid down that the said market rate must be determined by reference to the price which a willing vendor might reasonably expect to obtain from a willing purchaser for ascertaining the market rate the Court can rely upon such transactions which would afford a guide to fix the price. Price paid for a land acquired within a reasonable time from the date of acquisition of the land in question would certainly be the best piece of evidence. Price paid for a land possessing advantages similar to those of the land acquired in or about the time of notification will also supply the date for assessment of compensation. "similarly, while considering the contention of some of the land owners/appellants, their lordships have observed as follows:"8. The contention of counsel for the appellants in the aforesaid two appeals that they should have at least been awarded compensation for the potential building area at the rate prevalent in gopalnagar in 1958-59 cannot also be acceded to. A glance at the chart of the acquisitions which appears at page 85 of the Paper Book shows that the sales were of very small plots of land. A glance at the chart of the acquisitions which appears at page 85 of the Paper Book shows that the sales were of very small plots of land. In seven transactions out of eight to which our attention has been invited, the land acquired was below 200 sq. yds, and in the eighth transaction, it was 250 sq. yds. It is also well settled that in determining compensation the value fetched for small plots of land cannot be applied to the lands covering a very large extent and that the large area of land cannot possibly fetch a price at the same rate at which small plots are sold, (see collector of Lakhmipur v. Bhuban Chandra dutta ( AIR 1971 SC 2015 ). All the three contentions advanced on behalf of the claimants of compensation, therefore, fail. " ( 6 ) IN reply to the aforesaid argument of the appellant, learned counsel for the respondent argues that the ratio in the aforesaid case may not strictly apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case, inasmuch as a small patch of land i. e. Ac. 0. 198 decimals was acquired in his case, whereas Ac. O. 90 and Ac. O. 60 decimals of land was sold under Exts. 2 and 3 and therefore, all the aforesaid three patches of land are small patches of land. He also relies upon the case of Bhagwathula samanna and others v. Special Tahasildar and Land Acquisition Officer, Visakhapatnam municipality, Visakhapatnam In that case, award of Ac. 0. 86 paise per square yard by the Land Acquisition Officer on refer ence was reviewed by the Sub-Judge who fixed it @ Rs. 10/- per square yard. In appeal, the high Court made a deduction of the l/3rd of the value because a large extent of land was acquired and determined the market value at rs. 6. 50 per square yard. Apex Court, after making reference to several authorities from the Supreme Court, under the given facts and circumstances held that:"11. The principles of deduction in the land value covered by the comparable sale is thus adopted in order to arrive at the market value of the acquired land. In applying the principle it is necessary to consider all relevant facts. It is not the extent of the area covered under the acquisition, the only relevant factor. The principles of deduction in the land value covered by the comparable sale is thus adopted in order to arrive at the market value of the acquired land. In applying the principle it is necessary to consider all relevant facts. It is not the extent of the area covered under the acquisition, the only relevant factor. Even in the vast area there may be land which is fully developed having all amenities and situated in an advantageous position. If smaller area within the large tract in already developed and suitable for building purposes and have in its vicinity roads,drainage, electricity, communications etc. , then the principle of deduction simply for the reason that it is part of the large tract acquired, may not be justified. " ( 7 ) SECTION 23 of the Act provides parameter for determining the compensation to be awarded of land acquired and the first parameter is the market value of the land as on the date of publication of the Notification under section 4, Sub-section (1 ). Respondent's claim for compensation is on that basis. Therefore, the other parameters provided in Section 23 need not be gone into. Respondent's evidence as P. W, 1 clearly goes to show that the case land is in Unit No. IV, Bhubaneswar. It adjoins public road and all facilities and amenities like the drains electricity and water was available and it had all the potentialities and being used as homestead land. That evidence of P. W. 1 was not challenged by the State while cross-examining him Evidence of P. W. 1 further discloses that the land covered by Exts. 2 and 3 ware 200 cubits away from his land. This aspect has also not been disputed by the appellant. Thus, keeing in view the fact situation regarding the location of the land and its potentialities as the homestead land within the bhubaneswar Municipal limits, learned Civil judge rightly accepted Exts. 2 and 3 as the relevant documents to determine the market price of the case land. The extent of the land in Exts. 2 and 3 and the extent of the case land are not of much difference because all such lands are small stripes of land. Under such circumstances, the finding recorded by the Civil judge in fixation of the market price is neither incorrect nor excessive. The extent of the land in Exts. 2 and 3 and the extent of the case land are not of much difference because all such lands are small stripes of land. Under such circumstances, the finding recorded by the Civil judge in fixation of the market price is neither incorrect nor excessive. In view of that there is nothing to interfere with the same finding. ( 8 ) SINCE the appellant does not press any other point, the appeal is dismissed but under the facts and circumstances of the present case, parties are directed to bear their own costs of litigation. Lawyers fee is assessed at contested scale. Appeal dismissed.