JUDGMENT A. S. NAIDU, J. — The claimant has filed this appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short ‘the Act’) being not satisfied with the compensation awarded in Land Acqui¬sition Misc. Case No. 163 of 1978 by the then Subordinate Judge, Bhawanipatna. 2. Undisputedly for the purpose of extension of Co-operative Sugar Mill of Bargarh the land belonging to claimant-appellant situated in village “Tora” within Bargarh Police Sta¬tion, was acquired vide land acquisition declaration No. 39922 dated June 26, 1969 which was duly published in Orissa Gazette, Extraordinary Notification No. 1102 dated June 30, 1969. Out of the total land A.2.52 decimals was “Atta’ land and A.O.04 deci¬mals was “Mal” land. The Land Acquisition Collector granted compensation at the rate of Rs. 4,720/- per acre for “Mal” land and Rs. 944/- per acre for “Atta” land. The total amount of compensation awarded in favour of the claimant was Rs. 3.004.57 which he accepted on protest. The claimant thereafter filed a petition inter alia, challenging the quantum of the compensation awarded. The petition was referred by the Land Acquisition Col¬lector under Section 18 of the Act to the then Subordinate Judge, Bargarh and was registered as Land Acquisition Misc. Case No. 163 of 1978. The claimant alleged that the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector was grossly inadequate and arbi¬trary, that the acquired land is situated near Bargarh Railway Station and it is suitable for construction of residential house and that the market value at the relevant time was at least Rs. 300/- per decimal. 3. To substantiate his case, the claimant examined as many as three witnesses and exhibited two documents, namely, the registered sale-deed in respect of a nearby land dated January 9, 1969 (Ext.1) and the trace map of village “Tora” (Ext.2) reveal¬ing the situation of the land acquired and the land covered by the sale-deed dated 9.1.67 (Ext.1). On behalf of the State-opp. party neither any oral evidence was adduced nor any document was exhibited. 4. The learned Subordinate Judge on the basis of the materials available enhanced the quantum of compensation and directed for calculation of the same at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- per acre as far as “Atta” land was concerned and Rs. 10,000/- per acre for the “Mal” land. Being dissatisfied with the order, the claimant has filed this appeal. 5. Heard learned counsel for both sides. 6. 2,000/- per acre as far as “Atta” land was concerned and Rs. 10,000/- per acre for the “Mal” land. Being dissatisfied with the order, the claimant has filed this appeal. 5. Heard learned counsel for both sides. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant forcefully sub¬mitted that village “Tora” being adjacent to Bargarh town comes within the jurisdiction of Bargarh Police Station and the ac¬quired land had great potential value. The nature of the acquired land being homestead and similar to the land sold under Ext.1 which is a contemporaneous document, the claimant is entitled to compensation at the same rate. 7. The learned counsel for the State repudiated the claim put forth by the claimant-appellant submitting that the land covered under Ext.1 was a small piece of land and it cannot be made the basis for calculation when a vast area is acquired. 8. To appreciate the contentions advanced, being the final Court of facts, the evidence was scanned meticulously. P.W.1 is the scribe of the sale-deed, Ext.1 dated 9.1.67. Apart from the fact that he is a professional scribe, he is also a local inhabi¬tant. He has unambiguously stated that the acquired land is situ¬ated in between the Sugar Mill and the Railway Station and the price mentioned in Ext.1 was correct and in accordance with the prevailing market value in the locality, P.W.2, an Amin, who has prepared the trace map, Ext.2, deposed that the land of the appellant, which was acquired, is situated at the boundary of village Tora and Bargarh, i.e., within approximately 200 feet from the Railway acquired lands. The appellant has examined himself as P.W.3 and has specifically stated that the market value existing at the relevant time was as reflected in Ext.1 and that the land covered under Ext.1 was every close to the acquired land. 9. There is no dispute that village Tora and Bargarh Town are adjacent to each other. In fact patches of land situated in Tora, Bargarh and other adjacent villages have been acquired for the purpose of extension of Sugar Mill. The undisputed evidence on record indicates that the acquired land was very near to Bargarh Railway Station as well as to the Spinning Mill. 10. The evidence of P.W.2, who is a qualified Amin, indicates that the acquired land situated near the Railway Sta¬tion. The undisputed evidence on record indicates that the acquired land was very near to Bargarh Railway Station as well as to the Spinning Mill. 10. The evidence of P.W.2, who is a qualified Amin, indicates that the acquired land situated near the Railway Sta¬tion. The location of the land acquired as well as that of other lands are very clearly indicated in the trace map, Ext.2. In cross-examination, the opposite party could not tarnish the evidence of the witness. The claimant in his deposition has clearly stated that the acquired land was suitable for homestead purpose. The said evidence of the claimant has not been chal¬lenged in cross-examination and no contrary materials have been produced before the Court below. The aforesaid evidence of the claimant coupled with the evidence of other witnesses and exhib¬its lead to an irresistible conclusion that though the land was recorded as “Mal” land or “Atta” land, the same was suitable for homestead purpose. The records of the proceeding under Section 11 of the Act also clearly reveal that a house was existing on the acquired land and while awarding compensation, a sum of Rs. 4,145.50 has been calculated towards the same. The acquired land being very near to the Bargarh Town and in view of its advantageous location, there cannot be any doubt that it had good potential value. It is true that the price of small piece of land is ordi¬narily slightly higher, and while assessing compensation for acquisition of large areas, the same cannot be the basis. Never¬theless in the absence of proof of sale of lands of similar nature and size, the price willingly paid by a bona fide purchas¬er even for a small piece of land can be considered as a factor or basis while determining the price of large areas of land. Never¬theless in the absence of proof of sale of lands of similar nature and size, the price willingly paid by a bona fide purchas¬er even for a small piece of land can be considered as a factor or basis while determining the price of large areas of land. The Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Land Acquisition Offi¬cer-cum-Collector, Vijaywada v. Shaik Bahileem and other etc., AIR 1996 Andhra Pradesh 14, relying on the decision of the Su¬preme Court in the case of Administrator General of W.B. v. Col¬lector, Varanasi, AIR 1988 SC 943 has laid down that where regis¬tered documents relating to larger extent of land are not avail¬able and only transactions relating to small pieces of land are available, the same can be relied upon for the purpose of fixa¬tion of market value of larger extent of land, subject to the condition that appropriate deductions should be made while fixing the market value of such large tracts of land. In the aforesaid decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, it was held on the facts and circumstances of the case that a deduction of 33 per cent can be held to be reasonable. 11. It is apt to mention here that on behalf of the Land Acquisition Collector, neither the statistics of sale of land in the locality nor any document showing the market value of land prevalent in the locality at the relevant time, has been exhibit¬ed nor any oral evidence has been adduced. 12. The determination of market value of a land with poten¬tialities for urban use is an intricate exercise which calls for collection and collation of diverse economic criteria. The market value of a piece of property, for the purpose of determination of compensation, is stated to be the price at which the property changes hands from a willing seller to a willing, but not too anxious a buyer. The determination of market value is the predic¬tion of an economic event, viz., the price outcome of a hypothet¬ical sale expressed in terms of probabilities. Prices fetched for similar lands with similar advantages and potentialities under bona fide transactions of sale at or about the time of the pre¬liminary notification are the usual and indeed the best evidence of market value. Prices fetched for similar lands with similar advantages and potentialities under bona fide transactions of sale at or about the time of the pre¬liminary notification are the usual and indeed the best evidence of market value. Other methods of valuation can be resorted to if the evidence of sale of similar lands is not available (See : AIR 1988 SC 943 ). 13. Applying the ratio of the aforesaid decision to the facts and circumstances of the present case, and keeping in view the location of the acquired land, its potential value and na¬ture, I feel it would be just and proper to construe the sale-deed, Ext.1 as the basis for calculating the market value after making a deduction of 40 per cent, as only a small area has been sold under Ext.1. This Court in the case of Damador @ Damodar Nanda, First Appeal No. 506 of 1981, disposed of on 14.3.1996, arising out of the same acquisition, fixed the market value of “Mal” land at the rate of Rs. 12,000/- per acre and that of “Atta” land at the rate of Rs. 2.500/- per acre. The land covered in this case is not only situated in the same vicinity, but also has been acquired for the same purpose and I feel that the com¬pensation for the land acquired in this case is also to be calcu¬lated at the same rate, i.e., Rs. 12,000/- (Twelve thousand) per acre so far as “Mal” land is concerned and Rs. 2,000/- (Two thousand) per acre so far as “Atta” land is concerned and it is ordered accordingly. 14. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated above. The claimant-appellant shall also be entitled to other benefits flowing out of the Act, as it stood before amendment by Act 68 of 1984, since the acquisition was of the year 1969. There shall be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed in part.