JUDGMENT : B.P. Das, J. - This is an appeal u/s 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ("the Act" hereinafter) directed against the award passed by the Subordinate Judge, Bhawanipatna, in M.J.C. No. 143 of 1986, arising out of a reference made u/s 18 of the Act. 2. The short facts necessary for disposal of the present appeal may be stated thus ; A total area of Ac. 6.84 of land covered by plot Nos. 1135 and 1136 under Khata No. 33 in village Karanjiguda under Jaipatna PS. in Kalahandi district was compulsorily acquired by the Government of Orissa for construction of 400/200 K.V. Sub-station, Indravati, pursuant to a notification issued u/s 4(i) of the Act in that regard. The Land Acquisition Collector assessed the compensation at Rs. 39,014.22 in favour of the present appellant Angada Pujhari. But before the amount of compensation could be paid, a dispute over payment of such amount to the appellant having been raised by one Kanhei Pujhari, respondent No. 1, the Land Acquisition Collector referred the matter to the learned Subordinate Judge, Bhawanipatna, u/s 18 of the Act for decision. Respondent No. 1 in his objection claimed that he was entitled to a share in the compensation as the acquired land was also his ancestral property and that the valuation of the land fixed was very low inasmuch as the price per acre of land was Rs. 15,000/-. He further claimed that besides paddy, he was growing vegetables on plot No. 1136 and was making an annual income of Rs. 1,20,000/-. That apart, there were also some fruit-bearing trees on plot No. 1135. While determining compensation, the aforesaid matters had not been taken into consideration. The appellant took the stand that the acquired land belonged to his adoptive father late Kamlu Pujhari and being the sole heir of said Kamlu Pujhari, he alone was entitled to receive the entire compensation amount. 3. On the above pleadings, the learned Subordinate Judge framed two issues for determination in the reference, which are : "(i) Whether the petitioner is entitled to a share out of the compensation amount ? and (ii) Whether the amount of compensation is low and is liable to enhancement ?" 4. The petitioner in the Court below, i.e., respondent No. 1, in support of his case examined three witnesses and exhibited three documents. and (ii) Whether the amount of compensation is low and is liable to enhancement ?" 4. The petitioner in the Court below, i.e., respondent No. 1, in support of his case examined three witnesses and exhibited three documents. Similarly, O.P. No. 1 in the Court below, i.e., the present appellant, examined six witnesses and exhibited two documents to substantiate his stand. 5. The learned subordinate Judge on evaluating-the oral and documentary evidence on record came to hold that both the petitioner-respondent No. 1 and O.P. No. 1 appellant are entitled to the compensation money in equal proportion and assessed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 32,267.40 by adding 10% towards potential value on the cost of land of Rs. 29,334/-, as fixed by the L.A. Officer and allowed Rs. 9680.22 being the 30% of the market value as per Section 23(2) of the Act and also interest ' 12% per annum on the market value u/s 23(1-A) of the Act from 29.10.1985 to 7.2.1986. He has also granted interest ' 9% per annum u/s 34 of the Act on entire compensation amount from the date of taking possession of the acquired land till payment or deposit of the amount in favour of the claimants. 6. Dealing with the first issue, the Court below disbelieved the plea of adoption of Angada Pujhari, the present appellant by one Kamlu Pujhari on which basis the appellant claimed the entire compensation amount being the sole owner of the acquired land. During the course of argument, however, the counsel for the Appellant submits that though there is no document to prove the adoption. Yet, if the evidence is taken and read as a whole, then nothing would remain to disbelieve the plea of adoption. Before determining the evidence so far as adoption is concerned, it would be proper to keep in view the settled position of law in this regard in the leading case on the point is a decision of the Apex Court in Kishori Lal Vs. Mst. Before determining the evidence so far as adoption is concerned, it would be proper to keep in view the settled position of law in this regard in the leading case on the point is a decision of the Apex Court in Kishori Lal Vs. Mst. Chaltibai, wherein it was held thus : "As an adoption results in changing the course of succession, depriving wives and daughters of their rights and transferring properties to comparative strangers or more remote relations it is necessary that the evidence to support it should be such that it is free from all suspicions of fraud and so consistent and probable as to leave no occasion for doubting its truth.........." In Mayne's Hindu Law (11th Edn. at P. 237), it has been stated thus : "The giving and receiving are absolutely necessary to the validity of an adoption. They are the operative part of the ceremony, being that part of it which transfers the boy from one family into another. But the Hindu Law does not require that there shall be any particular form so far as giving and acceptance are concerned. For a valid adoption, all that the law requires is that the natural father shall be asked by the adoptive parent to give his son in adoption, and that the boy shall be handed over and taken for this purpose." The present is a case where admittedly there is no deed of adoption: Some oral and documentary evidence was adduced in support of adoption, One of such witnesses is the appellant, who was examined as O.P.W. 1, and stated that he was the third of the five sons of his natural father-Ramakrushna and when he was aged about two years, Kamlu took him as his son in adoption. O.P.W. 2, a co-villager, stated that Kamlu, who was the cousin of Ramakrushna, took Angada Pujhari in adoption in a ceremony when the latter was aged about two years. Except saying that Kamlu and his wife put a "TIKA" on the forehead of Angada, O.P.W. 2 was unable to say anything regarding the date, year and month of adoption as well as he failed to say even how many years ago the adoption took place. O.P.W. 2 further stated in paragraph 2 of his evidence that the adoptive father of Angada died when O.P.W. 2 was a boy. O.P.W. 2 further stated in paragraph 2 of his evidence that the adoptive father of Angada died when O.P.W. 2 was a boy. At the time of deposition, the age of O.P.W. 2 was 70 and that of Angada was 40 and if Angada was taken in adoption at the age of two years, the age of O.P.W. 2 would work out to be 32 years. In view of this, the evidence of O.P.W. 2 has been disbelieved by the Court below that he was a boy when the adoption took place. Similarly, the Court below after scanning the entire oral evidence has found the adoption of Angada not to have been proved. The Court below also considered the documentary evidence adduced by both the parties and found that the claim that Angad was the adopted son of Kamlu had not been established. 7. After going through the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, in view of the ratio of the decision referred to above, I find that there is nothing to indicate that the ingredients of adoption are satisfied in the present case. The Court below has rightly found that the claim of adoption raised by Angad has not been proved. 8. Now coming to the claim of Kanhei Pujhari, respondent No. 1, over the compensation money, the Court below found that there was no dispute between the parties that the acquired land was their ancestral property and was in possession and share of one Khatfu Pujhari, who had two sons, namely, Kamlu and Kuma, and two daughters, namely, Parvati and Jharana, all of whom were dead. There was also no controversy that Parvati and Jharana were given in marriage and their father-Khatlu died prior to the Hindu Succession Act came into force. The Court below also found that there was no controversy that Karnlu and Kuma had no issue of their own and their wives, namely, Debaki and t)uti respectively, were dead. The Court below has also found that the evidence of petitioner-Kanhei (P.W. 1) to the above effect had not-at all been assailed in the cross-examination by Angad (O.P.W. 1). P.W. 1's further evidence was also not disputed that Bhagaban, the brother of Khatlu, had two sons, namely, Udhab and Ramakrushna, who were also dead. The Court below has also found that the evidence of petitioner-Kanhei (P.W. 1) to the above effect had not-at all been assailed in the cross-examination by Angad (O.P.W. 1). P.W. 1's further evidence was also not disputed that Bhagaban, the brother of Khatlu, had two sons, namely, Udhab and Ramakrushna, who were also dead. Kanhei, the petitioner, is the only son of Udhab and O.P. No. 1-Angad is one of the five natural born sons of Ramakrushna, the other sons being Dambarudhar, Kanhei, Balabhadra and Dinabandhu, who were examined in support of O.P. No. 1 as O.P.Ws. 3, 4, 5 and 6 respectively. The Court below has found from the materials on record that the line of succession of Khatlu had become extinct and consequently the property of Khatlu, would revert back to his (Khatlu's) brother-Bhagaban. Admittedly, Bhagaban is dead having left behind two sons - Udhab and Ramakrushna, who have also died. Petitioner-Kanhei (respondent No. 1) is the son of Udhab and is, therefore, entitled to half of the compensation money being the successor of one branch, i.e., Udhab. So, the other half of the compensation money is to go to the sucessors of Ramakrushna, i.e., O.P.Ws. 1 (Angad), and his four brothers, namely, O.P.Ws. 3, 4, 5 and 6. Since in their respective evidence, O.P.Ws. 3, 4, 5 and 6 have deposed before the Court below that they do not lay any claim over the compensation money and have relinquished their claim, the other half of the compensation money is to go to the hands of Angad alone. As such, the finding of the Court below that the compensation amount has to be shared between the petitioner-Kanhei Pujhari and O.P. No. 1-Angad Pujhari in equal proportion is legal and justified and I do not find any ground to interfere with the said finding. 9. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, it is stated the amount awarded is very low and the market value of the acquired land has not been properly determined. Ext, 1 is the certified copy of a sale deed dated 5.7.1984 from which it appears that a piece of land measuring Ac. 0.08 was sold for a consideration of Rs. 3,000/- which means the valuation per acre was fixed at Rs. 37,500/-. The petitioner-claimant has accordingly claimed compensation at the aforesaid rate of Rs. 37,5007-per acre. Ext, 1 is the certified copy of a sale deed dated 5.7.1984 from which it appears that a piece of land measuring Ac. 0.08 was sold for a consideration of Rs. 3,000/- which means the valuation per acre was fixed at Rs. 37,500/-. The petitioner-claimant has accordingly claimed compensation at the aforesaid rate of Rs. 37,5007-per acre. The Court below, as I find, while dealing with the aforesaid aspect has observed that while the acquired land is in village Karanjiguda, the land under Ext. 1 is in village Mukhiguda, and that there was no evidence that both the lands were of same nature ancj had the similar utility and identical advantages. Further, the land under Ext. 1 is a small piece measuring only Ac. 0.08 and normally small pieces of land fetch higher price depending upon their situation, local advantages, utility they would offer to the purchaser. In this regard, the Court below relied upon a decision of this Court in Smt. Rajeswari Podar v. Sub-collector, Berhampur 29 (1963) CUT 281 wherein it was observed that high price paid for a small bit of land could not be taken as indicative of the market value of the acquired land and accordingly rejected the claim of the petitioner that the rate quoted for the land under Ext, 1, which is situated in a different village, obviously not having identical utility, cannot be taken as indicative of the market value of the acquired land. It is also held that except Ext. 1, no other documentary evidence has been adduced relating to sale and purchase of lands in the village. Analysing the oral evidence adduced in this regard, the Court below came to find that such evidence adduced by the petitioner was not-enough to come to a finding that the valuation of the acquired land was low. At the same time, the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 cannot be overlooked. P.W. 1 has stated that many buildings had already been constructed and many houses existed near the acquired land when the acquisition was made. To the same effect is the evidence of P.W. 2. Basing on the aforesaid evidence, the referal court arrived at a finding that the land in question being Atta land, i.e., high land, is suitable for construction of buildings and, therefore, the acquired land had the potential utility for construction of houses. To the same effect is the evidence of P.W. 2. Basing on the aforesaid evidence, the referal court arrived at a finding that the land in question being Atta land, i.e., high land, is suitable for construction of buildings and, therefore, the acquired land had the potential utility for construction of houses. On the aforesaid finding, the Court below further held that the acquired land being suitable for residential purpose would fetch more price than the lands used for agricultural purpose and taking into account the location of the land, added 10% of the total value of the land towards potential value. 10. As it appears, the land under Ext. 1 is situated in village Mukhiguda, which, according to P.W. 1, is adjacent to village Karanjiguda where the land in question was acquired. P.W. 1 has also denied the suggestion of the State that Mukhiguda town is at a distance of three miles from Karanjiguda village. The finding of the Court below is that the acquired land is Atta land, i.e., high land, and is suitable for construction of houses and as per the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 2, many buildings and houses existed near the acquired land when acquisition was made. 11. In this regard, I may refer to a decision of the Apex Court in L.A.O. and Mandal Revenue Officer Vrs. v. Harasaiah AIR 2001 SCW 867 In this case certified copies of two sale deeds which were said to be the instruments relating to small plots of land situated in the vicinity of the acquired land were accepted. The reference Court did not take into account these two sale deeds on the ground that nobody connected with the transactions involved in those deeds had been examined as witness. The Hjgh Court while negativing the aforesaid finding expressed that the reference Court should have also taken into consideration these two sale deeds relating to small plots for fixing the value of the acquired land, and accordingly enhanced the value of the acquired land. The aforesaid decision of the High Court was challenged before the Apex Court which held that High Court could not be said to have faulted for relying on the transactions record in the aforesaid two sale deeds though no one was examined for proving such transactions. The aforesaid decision of the High Court was challenged before the Apex Court which held that High Court could not be said to have faulted for relying on the transactions record in the aforesaid two sale deeds though no one was examined for proving such transactions. No evidence had been adduced by the State for creating any doubt regarding the bona fides or genuineness of the transactions mentioned therein. The Apex Court further observed as follows : "....... It is true that the area of lands involved in those sale deeds were relatively very small. Nonetheless, learned Judges persuaded themselves to consider the sale price indicated therein along with the prices shown in other transactions mentioned in Exts. A1 and A3 also, for reaching the conclusion that market value of the acquired land should have been Rs. 75,000/-per acre. ......." In the present case, even though the land under Ext. 1 is a small piece of land, nothing has been brought out in evidence to disbelieve the said transaction. The Court below has, however, not accepted the value of the land covered under such document as guidance factor for fixing the market value of the acquired land on the ground of smallness of the land area. 12. Keeping in view the ratio of the decision of the Apex Court cited above, I am of the view that it would be proper if a further 10% is allowed towards the potential value of the land over and above the 10% already added on that account by the Court below. Therefore, 20% of Rs. 29,334/- i.e., the cost of the land, comes to Rs. 5866.80 and thus the market value of the land 'works out to Rs. 35,200.80. In addition to the market value, the claimants are entitled to the statutory benefits admissible under Sub-sections (1 A) and (2) of Section 23 of the Act. So far as the interest granted by the Court below ' 9% per annum on the entire compensation amount from the date of taking possession of the acquired land till payment or deposit of the amount in favour of the claimants is concerned, the same shall remain unaltered. 13. In the result, the appeal is dismissed subject to the modification in the impugned award. No cost. Final Result : Dismissed