JUDGMENT : P.K. Tripathy, J. - Award dated 6th March, 1993 in L.A.Misc Case No. 15 of 1986 of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Baripada is under challenge at the instance of the claimant. 2. An area of Ac. 1.04 decimals vide plot Nos. 3731/1 and 3955/1 was acquired from the possession of the claimant under declaration No. 23943 dated 11.4.1983 published in Orissa Gazette No. 636 dated 31.5.1983. That land was acquired for construction of Budhabalanga Bridge and its approach on MOR No. 5 at Baripada. Since the land situates within the Municipal area i.e. in Ward No. VIII of Baripada Muncipality, the Land Acquisition Officer/Respondent assessed and determined the market price of the said land at the rate of Rs. 45,000/- per acre i.e. Rs. 450/-per decimals and along with other statutory benefits determined the total compensation at Rs. 53,820/-. Appellant received the same on protest and claimed for higher valuation at the rate of Rs. 1,50,000/- per acre and that necessitated the respondent to make the statutory reference u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short the 'Act'). 3. In the Court of Subordinate Judge, Baripada during the course of inquiry claimant examined as many as five witnesses ncluding her husband as P.W.1 and relied upon four sale deeds vide Exts. 1 to 4 which were marked without objection. No evidence was adduced from the side of the respondent. 4. Leanred Subordinate Judge on assessment of such evidence recorded the findings that the acquired land being in a low lying area and during rainy season submerged by flood, water, even if it situates within the Municipal limit, the value determined by the respondent at the rate of Rs. 450/- pr decimal is good enough and the claimant cannot get the minimum expectation at the rate of Rs. 700/- per decimal which was the market price as per Ext. 4. He answered the reference accordingly by way of confirming the award passed by the respondent. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant reads the entire evidence on record and argues that the evidence of P.Ws. clearly shows that the land acquired from the possession of the appellant and the lands under transaction vide Ext. 1 to 4 are situated nearby within the same municipal limit in Ward Nos VII and VIII. He further argues that the land sold under Exts. clearly shows that the land acquired from the possession of the appellant and the lands under transaction vide Ext. 1 to 4 are situated nearby within the same municipal limit in Ward Nos VII and VIII. He further argues that the land sold under Exts. 1 and 2 were at the rate about Rs. 13,000/- per decimals whereas the land sold under Ext. 4 was at the rate about Rs. 700/- per decimal and that was the relevant market price available by the date of acquisition. He further states that evidence of P.W.5 clearly shows that at the time of flood not only the land of the appellant but also the entire area covered by Ward Nos. VII and VIII were being submerged under flood water. Under such circumstance he rgues, a different standard should not have been adopted by learned Subordinate Judge for fixing a different valuation for the land of the appellant. Learned State counsel appearing for the respondent is unable to reply to that contention. Apart from that not only the aforesaid witnesses were not only not successfully cross-examined by the respondent but also no rebutal evidence was adduced to the evidence adduced by the appellant in support of higher valuation. Thus, it is found that learned Subordinate Judge did not properly appreciate the evidence on record and ignored to consider the aforesaid evidence in proper perspective. 6. The evidence led by the appellant clearly shows that a higher valuation than Rs. 450/- per decimal was the existing market price by the date of acquisition. Apart from that, it has been stated by P.W. 1 and not disputed by the respondent that as back as in the year 1962 another patch of land from that plot was acquired from the appellant and the compensation was paid at the rate of Rs. 160/- per decimal. Therefore, after lapse of 20 years due to growth of township the potential value of the land, as contended by P.W. 1, had rightly enhanced by many fold. That aspect of the evidence was not at all duly considered by learned Subordinate Judge. 7. It is thus found that the award passed by learned Subordinate Judge is devoid of due consideration of evidence on record. On perusal of the evidence on record this Court finds that a much higher valuation than Rs. That aspect of the evidence was not at all duly considered by learned Subordinate Judge. 7. It is thus found that the award passed by learned Subordinate Judge is devoid of due consideration of evidence on record. On perusal of the evidence on record this Court finds that a much higher valuation than Rs. 450/- per decimal was proved to be prevalent on the date of the acquisition. Therefore, when the appellant has relied upon Ext. 4. this Court fixes the valuation at the rate of Rs. 700/- per decimal for the acquired land i.e. at the rate of Rs. 70,000/- per acre. The compensation be calculated accordingly along with all other statutory benefits as admissible under the provisions of law. 8. The appeal is allowed accordingly. But the parties are directed to bear their respective cost of litigation. Hearing fee be assessed at contested scale. Final Result : Allowed