JUDGMENT : P.K. Misra, J. - The award of the Subordinate Judge,.First Court, Cuttack, fixing compensation at the rate of Rs. 2,00,000/- per acre is under challenge in the present appeal u/s 54 of the Land Acquisition Act (in short, the "Act"). 2. Ac.0.25 decimals of land belonging to the claimant -respondent along with other lands within the area of Choudwar Notified Area Council was acquired in the year 1983, for the purpose of construction of Birupa Barrage, as per Notification u/s 4(1) of the Act, published in the Gazette dated 15-4-1982. The Land Acquisition col1ector fixed compensation at the rate of Rs. 17. 391/- per acre. On the basis of application of the claimant-respondent, the matter was referred to the Subordinate Judge u/s 18 of the Act, who has fixed compensation at the rate of Rs. 2 lakhs per acre. 3. The learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants vehemently contended that the claimant himself had claimed compensation at the rate of Rs40,000/- per acre and as such the Subordinate Judge should not have fixed compensation at higher rate than the rate claimed by the claimant himself. The learned Counsel for the Appellants has submitted with reference to the original application u/s 18 of the Act filed by the claimant that initially, sum of Rs. 40,000/- per acre had been indicated in the said claim application and subsequently, the same has been interpolated by inserting "0" and making it Rs. 4 lakhs per acre. 4. Though a perusal of the original application u/s 18 filed by the claimant indicates that there is some overwriting in paragraph-2 and paragraph-8 of the grounds mentioned in the said application, it cannot be inferred that such overwriting had been made after the application had been filed before the Collector. On the other hand, the Subordinate Judge in his judgment has written that claimant had claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 5 lakhs per acre. The claimant has been examined as p. w. 3. No suggestion had been made to the claimant that initially he had claimed only Rs. 40,000/- per acre and there had been subsequent interpolation. In the absence of any other material, it is not possible to accept the contention of the Appellants that in the original application u/s 18 of the Act, the claimant had claimed only Rs. 40,000/- per acre. 40,000/- per acre and there had been subsequent interpolation. In the absence of any other material, it is not possible to accept the contention of the Appellants that in the original application u/s 18 of the Act, the claimant had claimed only Rs. 40,000/- per acre. The first submission of the counsel for the Appellants, therefore, cannot be accepted. 5. The learned Counsel for the Appellants then contended that the Subordinate Judge has relied upon two sale deeds produced on behalf of the claimant which relate to smaller lands and as such those sale deeds should not have been considered as the basis for determining the compensation when large area had been acquired. Ext. 1 is the sale deed in respect of Ac. 0.02 decimals of land which had been purchased by the wife of p. w. 1 in March, 1982, for Rs. 5.000/-, that is to say, at the rate of Rs. 2,50,000/- per acre. Ext. 2 is the sale deed in respect of Ac. 0.0l1/2 decimals of land which had been purchased by the mother of p. w. 2 in August, 1983, for Rs. 4.500/- that is to say at the rate of Rs. 3,00,000/- per acre. The unchallenged evidence of p. ws. I, 2 and 3 indicates that those lands were in the vicinity of the acquired land. It is, of course, true that those sale deeds relate to small patches of land. However, there is no reason to discard those sale deeds altogether and the valuation indicated in those sale deeds can be considered to be of some guidance for the purpose of fixing compensation. Apart from those two sale deeds, the trial court has also relied upon a Division Bench decision of this Court in First Appeal No. 338 of 1986 Land Acquisition Collector Cuttack v. Kailash Chandra Mangaraj, decided on 13-2-1990, where for the acquisition of land within the very same Choudwar Notified Area Council in the year 1976, compensation had been fixed at the rate of Rs. 1,15,000/- per acre. The acquisition in the present case was about seven years there-after. As observed in the aforesaid Division Bench decision, Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that there is increase in land value every year particularly within the areas coming within the limits of a town or a city. P. ws. 1,15,000/- per acre. The acquisition in the present case was about seven years there-after. As observed in the aforesaid Division Bench decision, Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that there is increase in land value every year particularly within the areas coming within the limits of a town or a city. P. ws. 1, 2 and 3 have indicated about the locality of the acquired land. Keeping in view the locality of the acquired land, there cannot be any doubt that there was great potentiality for user of the land as home-stead in future. Even though the two sale deeds reflected consideration at the rate of Rs. 2,50.000/- and Rs. 3,00,000/-, the trial court has fixed the compensation in the present case at a lower rate, that is to say, at the rate of Rs. 2 lakhs per acre, obviously keeping in view the fact that the earlier sale deeds related to smaller area of land. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the reasonings given by the trial court are baseless. 6. As against the aforesaid positive materials on record, there is no acceptable contrary material on record to come to any different conclusion. Even though the certified copy of a sale deed was marked as Ext. B, the Appellants had not taken any steps to prove the contents os the said sale deedparticulary relating to payment of consideration and the circumstances under which the sale deed had been executed. Moreover, there is no material on record to indicate about the location of the land involved in Ext. B. In the absence of any connecting material, it is difficult to place any reliance upon Ext. B. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. 8. There will, however, be no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed