ORDER B.P. Das, J. - The claimant- appellant in F. A. No. 210/2001 has challenged the award made u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act") on the ground of inadequacy of the awarded amount and prays for enhancement of the same. The other appeal i.e. F. A. No. 264 of 2001 the appellant - State has challenged the same award on the ground that the award is at the higher side and is not in consonance with the evidence on record, for which the award should be set aside. 2. It appears that the First Appeal No. 264/2001 has been filed 25 days beyond the period of limitation. This Court is satisfied with the cause show in filing the appeal beyond the period of limitation., Accordingly, the delay is condoned. 3. As both the appeals arise out of one judgment, they were heard together and this common judgment is passed. 4. As it appears, by virtue of compulsory acquisition of land an area of Ac. O. 100 decimals of land of one Indira Panda, who is the appellant in F. A. No. 210/2001 and respondent in other F.A. No, 264/2001, was acquired for the purpose of establishment of Bird Sanctuary in the Mauza- Jujhagarh and a compensation was awarded @ Rs. 20,000/- per acre. The awarded amount was received under protest and a reference was made u/s 18 of the Act to the Civil Court for necessary adjudication. The case of the land oustee before the Civil Court was that the prevailing market rate of the acquired land at the time of acquisition was more than Rs. 2,00,000/- per acre, for which the fixation of market rate at Rs. 20,000/- per acre is unfair. 5. In order to prove her case, the land owner examined her husband as P.W. 1 and relied upon 5 documentary evidence including the certified copy of the sale deed dated 28.9.1987 (Ext. 3) and certified copy of the order passed by the Civil Court in Land Acquisition Misc. Case No. 783 of 1994 as Ext. 5. 6. The State examined the Revenue Inspector in order to prove their bona fide as O.P.W. 1 and relied upon the sale statistics as Ext. 'A' and the order passed by the Collector, Puri in L.A. Misc. Case No. 53 of 1988 as Ext. 'B'. 7. Case No. 783 of 1994 as Ext. 5. 6. The State examined the Revenue Inspector in order to prove their bona fide as O.P.W. 1 and relied upon the sale statistics as Ext. 'A' and the order passed by the Collector, Puri in L.A. Misc. Case No. 53 of 1988 as Ext. 'B'. 7. It is stated by the P.W. 1 that the aforesaid land has been purchased for the residential purpose and the Ext. 3 indicates that the land has been sold @ Rs. 1,17,000/- per acre in the said area. In order to prove the Ext: 3 the petitioner has examined the vendee of the Ext. 3 as P.W. 2, who has purchased Ac. O. 251/2 Dec. for a consideration of Rs. 3,000/- and the land in question is situated nearby the said suit land. It is not disputed by the parties that the present land is situated near Cuttack - Chandaka Road, which is known as Old Grand Trunk Road and nearer to the Botanical garden and Zoological Park at Nandan Kanan. P.W. 1 has also produced the order passed in Land Acquisition Misc. Case No. 783/1994 in respect of the land at Mouza Dadha acquired for the purpose of Nandan-Kanan, wherein the compensation was awarded @ Rs. 80,000/-per acre in the year 1984, vide Notification dated 19.1.1984. 8. The reference Court heavily relied upon Ext. 3 and Ext. 5 and accepted Ext. 3. Ext. 'A' is the sale statistics and the Ext. B, which is the order passed by the Collector basing upon which the sale price of the land was arrived at Rs. 20,000/- per acre was also considered by the reference Court. While proving the aforesaid Exts. A & B it was stated by the O.P.W. 1 that though there are two sale deeds for consideration of Rs. 50,000/- each regarding the sale of land in the vicinity of the disputed land, the said sale deeds were discarded because they are of better variety of land being Sarad - II Kisam and the present land is situated in a water logged area. Except saying so there is nothing in evidence to show that the present land is in a water logged area. Peculiarly during the cross-examination the opp. party has admitted that the said land was recorded as Sarad - II land during 1962-63 settlement. Except saying so there is nothing in evidence to show that the present land is in a water logged area. Peculiarly during the cross-examination the opp. party has admitted that the said land was recorded as Sarad - II land during 1962-63 settlement. Nothing is on record to indicate how the aforesaid land was degraded to Sarad-l variety for which the land value of similar land as indicated in Ext. A being Rs. 50,000/- per acre has been discarded. The reference Court taking all the aspects into consideration and looking into the topography of land and referring to the order passed in L. A. Misc. Case No. 783 of 1994 declared the market value of the suit land at Rs. 80,000/- per acre. 9. The learned counsel for the State strenuously argued saying that the Ext. 5, on which the reliance was made by the Civil Court has been set aside by this Court in First Appeal No. 251/1998 declaring the value of the said land to be Rs. 44,000/- per acre instead of Rs. 80,000/-, for which the award passed by the Civil Court in this impugned order is liable to be set aside. 10. Before going into the circumstances under which the order passed in L.A. Misc. Case No. 783/1994 was set aside, I may make it clear that, (a) the present land as the evidence goes, is Sarad-II land, (b) there is no evidence that the land in question is in a water logged area; (c) the existing amenities like water, electricity, telephone are available; (d) and the most important is that the reference Court has not alone relied upon the Ext. 5, but taken various aspects into consideration as detailed in various paragraphs of the impugned, order fixed the value of the land at Rs. 80,000/-. So far as Ext. 5 is concerned, there is wide variation in the valuation of land found in the sale deed which has come through opposing sets of evidence for which the market value was determined by striking a balance between the opposing sets of evidence coupled with some guess work. In the present case even if the evidentiary value of Ext. 5 is totally discarded, the Ext. A i.e. the sale statistics can be relied upon in which the Land Acquisition Officer indicates that Sarad-II land at the relevant point of time was valued at Rs. 50,000/- per acre. In the present case even if the evidentiary value of Ext. 5 is totally discarded, the Ext. A i.e. the sale statistics can be relied upon in which the Land Acquisition Officer indicates that Sarad-II land at the relevant point of time was valued at Rs. 50,000/- per acre. Added to this there is nothing to discard the evidentiary value of Ext. 3, which is the sale value of the land situated in the vicinity of the suit land. All these aspects go to show that the market value so fixed by the reference Court could have been the same had he not taken the Ext. 5 into consideration. So the decision rendered in First Appeal No. 251/1998 has no bearing on these appeals. 11. In the above circumstances, both the appeals fail and are dismissed accordingly. Final Result : Dismissed