JUDGMENT P. K. TRIPATHY, J. — This appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short ‘the Act’) has been filed by the above named appellant as against the award passed on 5.10.1993 by learned Subordinate Judge, Nayagarh in L.A. Misc. Case No. 37 of 1991. The concerned Land Acquisition Officer is the respondent. 2. The fact which is not in dispute is that Ac. 0.67 decimals of land was acquired from the appellant under the Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act made on 7.1.1988. The category of that land was Sarad Dofasil. The respondent determined the rate at Rs. 14,000/- per acre for Sarad Dofasil category of land and assessed and paid the compensation accordingly. Appellant raised protest to that valuation and inadequacy of compensation and claimed for higher compensation at the rate of Rs.1,50,000/- per acre. Because of that, reference under Section 18 of the Act was made. 3. In course of inquiry, appellate examined two witnesses including himself as P.W. 1 and relied on three sale deeds marked Exts. 1 to 3. Respondent examined one witness who is the Amin in that office and relied on a series of sale deeds marked Exts. A to K-relating to the sale transactions made in the years 1986 and 1987. 4. On assessment of such evidence, learned Subordinate Judge confirmed to the valuation fixed by the respondent. In that respect, his findings are as follows :- (i) The documents Exts. 1 and 2 relate to another village and there is no evidence worth the name to show that such land is adjoining to the acquired land in this case and under such cir¬cumstance valuation in Exts. 1 and 2 are not helpful. Apart from that, in Exts.2 a homestead land was sold whereas Ext.1 indicates an exorbitant price and because parties were aware about the prospective acquisition by the year 1985, therefore, the afore¬said documents might have been created for the purpose of claim¬ing higher compensation. (ii) On a comparison between Ext.3 and the sale deeds produced from the side of the respondent, learned Subordinate Judge found that Ext.3 cannot be the sole document to be relied upon to determine the valuation. (ii) On a comparison between Ext.3 and the sale deeds produced from the side of the respondent, learned Subordinate Judge found that Ext.3 cannot be the sole document to be relied upon to determine the valuation. On the other hand, a conspectus of all the sale transactions indicate that the rate determined by the respondent is correct ; (iii) The claim of compensation for the unacquired land because of loss of potential value and the claim of compensation due to damage to the green gram crop was not pleaded or advanced as a cause in the protest petition filed by the appellant and under such circumstance appellant is not entitled to such additional compensation ; and (iv) Possession of the land was obtained after payment of compen¬sation determined by the respondent and, therefore, appellant is not entitled interest u/s 34 of the Act. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that in view of the ratio in the case of G. Narayan Rao v. Land Acquisition Officer, AIR 1996 SC 3469 , the documents relied upon by the respondent should not have been relied upon inasmuch as the parties to the sale transactions were not examined in the Court. He also argued that in view of the ratio in the case of Bangaru Narasing¬ha Rao Naidu etc. v. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Vizianaga¬ram, AIR 1982 SC 63 , Ext.3 should have been accepted as the proper document for determination of the valuation. He also argued that in view of the ratio in the case of the Land Acquisi¬tion Officer, Puri v. Jogendra Garabadu, 1998 (I) OLR-59, compen¬sation should have been awarded for the loss of potential value of unacquired land and because of damage to the greengram crop. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent advanced argument sup¬porting to the impugned award and stating that in the facts and circumstances involved in this case the ratio in the above cited decisions are not applicable. He has not cited any decision from the side of the respondent. 7. In the case of G. Narayan Rao (supra) it has been held by the apex Court that unless the vendor and vendee are examined relating to sale transaction basing on which determination of valuation is putforth, then in such a case the documents lose evidenciary value. In this case, admittedly, parties to the transactions under Exts. A to K were not examined. In this case, admittedly, parties to the transactions under Exts. A to K were not examined. In view of the said ratio those documents lose their evidenciary value. The transaction under Exts.1 and 2 also stand on the same footing. Ext.3 has been proved by the purchaser who has been examined as P.W.3. He purchased Ac.0.04 decimal of land for Rs.2000/- and he has admitted in the cross-examination that he purchased that land because it was adjoining to his land. The Court below has taken note of this piece of evidence of P.W.2 to record his reason that the consideration under Ext.3 cannot, therefore, be regarded as the prevalent market price and because of the location and situa¬tion of the land purchased under Ext.3 vis-a-vis the land owned and possessed by P.W.2, that witness had paid a higher price. This Court finds no unreasonableness in that approach. P.W.2 has also stated in his evidence that the acquired land situates at a distance of about 300 cubits from his land. Under such circumstance, there cannot be a nexus between the valuation in Ext.3 and the value of the land acquired from the appellant. Except the aforesaid evidence there is no other acceptable evidence to determine the market price. If there is no acceptable evidence to determine the market price, then if the evidence relating to the yield would have been available that could have been utilised by adopting appropriate multiplier to determine the valuation of the land. Such evidence is also not available on record. In the case of Bangaru Narasingha Rao Naidu (supra) a sale transaction with respect to another patch from the acquired plot was putforth as the prevalent market price and ultimately the apex Court accepted that valuation. Such is not the case so far as the present dispute is concerned. Ext.3 does not stand at par with the nature of transaction in the above noted reported decision. It, thus, appears that though the proof of higher valuation is the responsibility of the appellant, he has not been able to bring proper evidence on record to prove that on the date of acquisition of the land the prevalant market price was Rs. 1.50,000/- per acre. Series of sale transactions, though have lost their evidenciary value because of non-examination of the parties to the transactions, goes to indicate that the average valuation was about Rs. 15,000/- per acre. 1.50,000/- per acre. Series of sale transactions, though have lost their evidenciary value because of non-examination of the parties to the transactions, goes to indicate that the average valuation was about Rs. 15,000/- per acre. Be that as it may, taking the totality of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court feels that a rate of Rs. 25,000/- would be just and proper to determine the price of the acquired land. 8. So far as the claim of additional compensation for loss of potential value of the unacquired land and damage to the greengram crop, the evidence adduced from the side of the appellant is next to nothing inasmuch as what is the extent of the land which was rendered unfit for cultivation and what was the quantity of the crop which got damaged was not stated by the appellant in his evidence. Therefore, this Court does not interfere with that part of the finding of the Court below. In that respect, the ratio in the case of Land Acquisition Officer, Puri (supra) is therefore found not helpful to the appellant. 9. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part with propor¬tionate cost by determining the rate of compensation at the rate of Rs.25,000/- per acre. Appellant shall be entitled to all statutory benefits which was granted to him in the award, but the proportionate enhancement of the amount be made because of the determination of valuation at a higher rate and the balance amount from the said compensation amount be paid to the appellant within a period of three months from the date of such determina¬tion and failing that the appellant shall be entitled to a fur¬ther penal interest at the rate of 6% on the unpaid awarded amount from date of that default till the date of actual payment. Hearing fee is assessed at contested scale. Appeal allowed in part.