P. K. TRIPATHY, J. ( 1 ) AC. 1. 08 decimals of Sarada Dofasali land apertaining to Plot Nos. 414 and 416 under holding No. 71 in village chhanda under Patkura police-stattion was acquired by the Government for drainage purpose as per the declaration dated 26. 7. 1983. The Land Acquisition Officer i. e. , the appellant assessed the compensation @rs. 15,000/- per acre and along with other statutory entitlements determined the total compensation at Rs. 18,630/ -. The claimant-respondent received the same on protest and claimed for higher compensation. Hence reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short 'the Act;) was made by the appellant to the court of subordinate Judge, Kendrapara which was registered as L. A. Misc. Case No. 19 of 1984. ( 2 ) DURING the course of inquiry, respondent examined three witnesses including himself as P. W. 1 and relied upon two registered sale deeds vide Exts. 1 and 2. The appellant examined an Amin as the solitary witness from its side and relied upon the sale statistics Ext. A and the grounds for valuation Ext. B. On assessment of such evidence, learned subordinate Judge held that there is positive evidence from the side of the respondent regarding existence of much higher market price of agricultural lands of similar category and the rebuttal evidence adduced by the appellant does not disprove the same. Accordingly, the rate of compensation determined by the appellant was not accepted. He further held that on a conspectus of entire circumstance and evidence on record, valuation @ Rs. 30,000/- was found to be more appropriate. Learned Subordinate judge, however, declined to grant any compensation, as prayed for by the respondent, for loss due to severence. Learned Subordinate Judge passed the award accordingly and also granted other statutory entitlements. ( 3 ) THE aforesaid award is under challenge at the instance of the appellant. Respondents after their appearance did not file any cross-objection challenging any of the findings recorded by learned Subordinate Judge. ( 4 ) LEARNED Additional Standing Counsel while challenging the impugned award argued for some time emphasising the point that since the valuation report Ext. ( 3 ) THE aforesaid award is under challenge at the instance of the appellant. Respondents after their appearance did not file any cross-objection challenging any of the findings recorded by learned Subordinate Judge. ( 4 ) LEARNED Additional Standing Counsel while challenging the impugned award argued for some time emphasising the point that since the valuation report Ext. A was prepared on the basis of sale statistics received from the office of the Sub-Registrar, the same should have been accepted without asking for production and proof of such sale deeds on the ground that such sale statistics are public document and proof of such transactions or the valuation report is not necessary. The aforesaid contention of the appellant is unduly under a misconception about the provision of law in the Evidence Act and the Land Acquisition Act. ( 5 ) AS per provision of law in Part-II of the act, after the declaration and Notification of the subject relating to acquisition of land public notice is to be made inviting objection, inter alia, relating to valuation for the purpose of determining the compensation. Section 11 provides for an enquiry in that respect. Therefore the valuation report prepared on the basis of an enquiry either under Section 5-A or 11 of the Act is in the discharge of the administrative function. Besides that the sale price taken note from the sale deeds is only relating to amount of consideration money passed in such transactions. In the absence of examining the parties to the transaction relating to the circumstances under which such transactions were entered into and the reason for fixing the sale price, what the appellant derive on reference to such sale statistics is the fact of certain price paid in such sale transactions. Therefore the information derived therefrom is in no way a piece of evidence to come within the category of 'conclusive proof as defined in section 4 of the Evidence Act. Similarly presumption as can be derived in accordance with section 114 of the Evidence Act is also not available in favour of such statistics. Therefore the information derived therefrom is in no way a piece of evidence to come within the category of 'conclusive proof as defined in section 4 of the Evidence Act. Similarly presumption as can be derived in accordance with section 114 of the Evidence Act is also not available in favour of such statistics. When the appellant prepared the valuation statement recording his opinion regarding the existing market price of the acquired land, it comes within the four corners of "opinion evidence" of the Land Acquisition Officer and such evidence, if relied upon, is not only to be tendered but also to be proved in the manner of proving the opinion evidence. Admittedly, appellant did not adduce proper and adequate evidence to prove correcteness of the valuation statement. Hence learned Subordinate judge was correct in his approach in attaching no credibility to such 'not proved' document. For the reasons indicated above, argument of the appellant is found to be devoid of merit. ( 6 ) BE that as it may, a bare reference to the provisions in sub-section (1) of Section 23 of the Act, shows that while adjudicating a reference made under section 18 with reference to the particulars provided as per the provision in section 19 of the Act, the Court is required to, inter alia consider the market value of the concerned acquired land. The term 'market value' has not been defined in the Act. It should be borne in mind that 'price' of a piece of land may. not mean the 'value' of that land. The price may be abnormally high or low but the value remains constant. It is a matter of coincidence when the value and the price become same. Because of that the legislators have used the term 'market value' for the purpose of determination of compensation. Thus it is the widely accepted norm that 'market value' means the price a willing buyer would give to a willing purchaser. That being so when claimant i. e. , the person who is entitled to compensation for the acquired land raises objection to the value determined by the Collector it results in a reference to the Court for determination of the compensation and there compensation is assessed and determined, inter alia, on the basis of 'market value' of the acquired land. That being so when claimant i. e. , the person who is entitled to compensation for the acquired land raises objection to the value determined by the Collector it results in a reference to the Court for determination of the compensation and there compensation is assessed and determined, inter alia, on the basis of 'market value' of the acquired land. Lands situated in the same locality and may be adjoining to each other may have a different market value even if belonging to the same category because of difference in other relevant aspect. Therefore, no fixed rate can be determined by adopting a straight jacket formula. However, while determining compensation, Land Acquisition Collector should ascertain the 'market value' only on the basis of proper inquiry and not otherwise. ( 7 ) THE appellant further argued that small patches of two to four decimals of land being the subject matter of transactions under Exts. 1 and 2, the consideration passed thereon may not be the guidelines for determining the market value of the acquired land. Indeed that principle has been followed by the learned subordinate Judge inasmuch as higher valuations at the rate of one lakh and fifty thousand per acre adopted in Exts. 1 and 2 respectively were not at all followed or adopted by learned Subordinate Judge. The respondent led that evidence to show that a much higher price than Rs. 15,000/- was the prevalent market price by the date of acquisition. Therefore, no fault can be found with the impugned award for referring to Exts. 1 and 2 so as to make a pragmatic approach and to determine the valuation in a reasonable manner. ( 8 ) NO other point is urged or raised in challenging the impugned award. This Court finds that the valuation at the rate of Rs. 30,000. 00 fixed by the learned Subordinate judge is neither unreasonable nor unjust. Therefore, this Court does not interfere with the impugned award and accordingly, the appeal is dismissed exparte. Hearing-fee be assessed at ex parte scale. Cost shall be borne by the appellant. Appeal dismissed.