JUDGMENT : B. Panigrahi, J. - This appeal u/s 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is directed against the judgment dated 30th September. 1981 passed by the learned Sub-Judge, Dhenkanal in L.A. Misc. Case No. 34 of 1979 directing the Appellant to pay compensation at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per acre for the Sarad lands and Rs. 8.000/- per acre for Taila lands. 2. Uncontrovertible facts are stated herein below: That the land measuring Ac. 23.25 decimals belonging to the Respondents was acquired for the purpose of IPIBEL in the village Kendukhaman by notification dated 30th, December. 1978 published in the Orissa Gazette dated 5.1.1979 inviting objection from the owner's pursuant to which the Respondents filed their objection claiming that the valuation fixed by the authority was not just and proper nor did it have nexus with the market value. The authorities fixed compensation at the rate of Rs. 5.000/- per acre for Sarad lands and Rs. 3.571/- per ace for Taila lands and fixed compensation at Rs. 12,623.70 paise for the lands and additional compensation of Rs. 129.05 paise towards the trees u/s 23(2) of the Land acquisition Act. The Respondents received the compensation under protest and moved the authorities to refer the matter to the Court for determination of compensation u/s 18 of the Act. This is how the matter came up for consideration by the learned Subordinate Judge who has assessed at Rs. 10,000/- per acre for the Sarad lands and Rs. 8,000/- for the Taila lands. 3. In this case the owner-claimants had put-forth their demand for higher compensation. It has been stated that they had spent a considerable amount of Rs. 700/- to 800/- per acre for converting the land into a paddy growing land. It was also further claimed that there is a tank adjoining to the land for the use of irrigation purpose. From out of the income, they are maintaining their families. The land in question was also fit for construction of house for the purpose of IPIBEL. 4. The land is located at a distance of about 30 lathas from the Municipal area of Dhenkanal Town. (One latha is equal to 13 feet and 2 inch.) Therefore, the Respondents claimed that the land in question is situated on the flank of Dhenkanal Municipality and has a great potential value. 4. The land is located at a distance of about 30 lathas from the Municipal area of Dhenkanal Town. (One latha is equal to 13 feet and 2 inch.) Therefore, the Respondents claimed that the land in question is situated on the flank of Dhenkanal Municipality and has a great potential value. There has been an Electric Sub-Station to the west of the acquired land. Railway line runs from the northern side. Due to such importance of the land the IPIBEL intended to acquire the land. The Respondents also filed some sale deeds which were contemporaneously executed more or less at the same time. The learned trial Court after discussing the evidence of the Respondents and also their witnesses arrived at a conclusion as stated above. 5. As against these evidence the Appellants have examined three witness, out of which the evidence of the Land Acquisition Officer (Banabihari Jena) - P.W.2 is relevant. From the text of cross-examination it is noticed, that he made a clean breast admission that he did not verify the documents on whose basis the valuation was made. The sale statistics, the sale deed which was relied upon, not relevant to determine the valuation Ext. 1 dated 5.10.1977 was undisputed a contemporaneous document. Therefore, the learned referral Court on the basis of such evidence had determined the compensation at the above rate. 6. The learned Advocate General while addressing the merits of the appeal has however admitted that there was no statistics placed before the Court below, except fling of some contemporaneous documents, with the assistance of which the real compensation had been determined. I find the Respondents on the other hand had filed series of sale deeds which were more or less on the same period i.e. during the time of acquisition which goes a long way in determining the market value. While assessing the market value, the learned trial Court should have also taken into consideration the claim put forward by the Respondents before the referral Court. Although the Respondents have filed some documents in support of proving the safe transaction, but those documents cannot however indicate that those lands sold to different persons are situated in or around the same vicinity. Merely, filing of such documents would not however absolve their duties to prove the higher valuation. Although the Respondents have filed some documents in support of proving the safe transaction, but those documents cannot however indicate that those lands sold to different persons are situated in or around the same vicinity. Merely, filing of such documents would not however absolve their duties to prove the higher valuation. While determining the higher valuation, the Court should have taken into consideration the potential value of the land, the situation of the same and also other benefits and advantage the Respondents claimed for higher compensation. The land in question was used for agricultural purpose. In such background, it is, therefore, to be noted that the award made by the referral Court at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per acre appears to be higher side particularly when it was used for only agricultural purpose. 7. It is to be next considered whether the valuation of the land fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer was just and proper. While determining the classification of the land, the Land Acquisition Officer has referred to' the record of rights prepared in-the year 1923. But he did not take the present situation of the land. Therefore, on the basis of such document which has nexus to the acquired land and Land Acquisition Collector had determined the compensation at the rate of Rs. 5.890/- per acre relating to Sarad lands and Rs. 3,751/- Taila lands. 8. But in my considered view such estimation is arbitrary (Sic) as it did not represent real nexus with the market value at the time of acquisition. In this case, it is noticed that the claimants have laid a further claim of Rs. 2.500/- per acre for Sarad lands. Therefore, the learned Sub-Judge should not have fixed at Rs. 10.000/- per acre. But the determination of 'the valuation should not have been more than the amount claimed by the owners. Thus it is fixed at Rs. 7,500/- per acre and in so far as Taila land is concerned, the valuation ought to have been fixed at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- per acre. In the absence of the proper assistance from either side, it is sometimes difficult for the Court to determine the valuation of the acquired land. Therefore I hold that the valuation of Sarad land is fixed at the rate of Rs. 7.500/- and Taila land at the rate of Rs. 5.000/- per acre. 9. 5,000/- per acre. In the absence of the proper assistance from either side, it is sometimes difficult for the Court to determine the valuation of the acquired land. Therefore I hold that the valuation of Sarad land is fixed at the rate of Rs. 7.500/- and Taila land at the rate of Rs. 5.000/- per acre. 9. The parties are in litigating term from 1979 onwards. In this backdrop, it is to be next, considered whether they shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 15% from the date of expiry of one year from the date on which the possession was taken. As per the proviso to Section 28 it obligates upon the State Government to pay interest at the rate of 15% per annum for the additional amount which has been fixed from the date of expiry of the period of one year on which the possession of the (and was taken over. The Respondents are also entitled the excess amount which has been determined by the Court u/s 54 of the Act. 10. Accordingly, the award is modified to the extent as follows That the Appellant shall be liable to pay compensation at the rate of Rs. 7.500/- per acre for Sarad land and Rs. 5.000/- per acre for Taila land over and above the valuation of the tree as determined by the Land Acquisition Officer. It is further directed that the Appellant shall pay interest at the rate of 15% per annum on the amount determined by this Court excluding the amount which was paid earlier from the date of the expiry of a period of one year from the date on which possession was taken. 11. The appeal is accordingly allowed in part but without cost. 12. In view of the findings stated above, the cross objection filed by the Respondent is accordingly disposed of. Final Result : Allowed