JUDGMENT P. K. TRIPATHY, J. — Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Collector, Kalahandi has preferred this Appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short, the Act) as per award passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Nawapara in reference under Sec¬tion 18 of the Act registered as M.J.C. No. 63 of 1992. 2. There is no controversy on the fact that Ac. 1.22 decimals of land of the respondents was acquired under Notifica¬tion No. 58070 dated 7.9.1988 for the purpose of Upper Jonk Irrigation canal and that the said land has been described as agricultural land as Bahalkharipani and Bernakhari lands together with solatium and interest. The Land Acquisition Collector as¬sessed the compensation at Rs. 14,631.40 paise. Respondents accepted the same on protest and claimed for higher valuation at the rate of Rs. 2500/- per dismissal on the ground that the acquired land is abating to densely populated locality of Rajpur-Nawapara which is a part of growing township of Sub-Divisional Headquarters of Nawapara and soon after acquisition of the land, it became the district headquarters of Nawapara district. In course of the enquiry, on the applications of the respondents, a Pleader Commissioner was deputed and the report of the Pleader Commissioner dated 3.4.1993 has been marked as Ext. 3. Both the parties adduced evidence in support of their respective contentions on the valuation of the property. The claimant-respondent relied on the evidence of the claimant as P.W.1 and one Bishnuram Suraj, P.W.2 and also relied on a Registered Sale Deed executed by him besides the Pleader Commissioner’s report and a xerox copy of the judgment as Exts. 1, 3 and 2 respectively and also the sketch map as Ext. 4. The appellant examined the Land Acquisition Officer as opp. party witness No. 1 and relied on the working sheet, Ext. B, besides reference petition Ext. A. 3. On assessment of evidence, learned Subordinate Judge fixed valuation of Ac. 0.93 decimals of Plot Nos. 276 anbd 278 @ Rs. 2500/- per decimal, valuation of lands of Ac. 0.07 decimals in Plot No. 274/674 @ Rs. 1200/- per decimal and Plot No. 329 having Ac. 0.22 decimals @ Rs. 35,000 per acre i.e. Rs. 350/- per decimal. Determining the valuation in the manner indicated above, learned Subordinate Judge fixed the quantum of compensation at Rs. 276 anbd 278 @ Rs. 2500/- per decimal, valuation of lands of Ac. 0.07 decimals in Plot No. 274/674 @ Rs. 1200/- per decimal and Plot No. 329 having Ac. 0.22 decimals @ Rs. 35,000 per acre i.e. Rs. 350/- per decimal. Determining the valuation in the manner indicated above, learned Subordinate Judge fixed the quantum of compensation at Rs. 2,48,600/- together with solatium and interest at admissible rate and directed to make payment of the amount minus an amount of Rs. 14,631.40 received by the respondents on protest. 4. Learned Government counsel argued that the determina¬tion of valuation by the learned Subordinate Judge is exorbitantly on the higher side and in that respect, version of the claimant was treated as gospel truth without assessing and analyzing the evidence of opp. party witness No. 1. Accordingly, he argues to set aside the impugned award and to confirm award of the Collector under Section 11 of the Act. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimant-respondent argues in support of the grounds advanced in the cross-objection and prays to enhance the valuation @ Rs. 3,000/- per decimal for the Ac. 0.93 decimals and also proportionately enhance the valuation of Ac. 0.07 deci¬mals, vide Plot No. 274/674. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties in the above indicated manner and on perusal of the evidence on record, we find that though learned Subordinate Judge awarded compensation at a higher rate, but that is not exorbitant. The claimant-respondent in the pursuit to get more compensation stated that plot Nos. 276 and 278 have the potential of house site and could fetch a price @ Rs. 3,000/- per decimal, whereas Plot No. 274/674 having similar potential could fetch a price of Rs. 2,500/- per decimal. He stated that Ac. 0.22 decimals of land of plot No. 329 continued to be paddy land @ Rs. 40,000/- per acre. Pleader Commissioner’s Report (Ext. 3) does not support him in that respect at all. Therefore, making comparative assessment of evidence of P.W.1 and report of the Pleader Commissioner, Ext. 3 together with evidence of O.P.W.1, we find that valuation @ Rs. 2,000/- (two thousands) per decimal for Ac. 0.93 decimals of land of Plot Nos. 276 and 278, @ Rs. 1000/- (one thousand) per decimal for Ac. 0.07 decimals of land of Plot Nos. 274/674 and Rs. 3 together with evidence of O.P.W.1, we find that valuation @ Rs. 2,000/- (two thousands) per decimal for Ac. 0.93 decimals of land of Plot Nos. 276 and 278, @ Rs. 1000/- (one thousand) per decimal for Ac. 0.07 decimals of land of Plot Nos. 274/674 and Rs. 150/- (one hundred and fifty rupees) per decimal of Ac. 0.22 decimals of land of Plot No. 329 would be the appropriate market value. Calculating at such rate, we find that respondent is entitled to an award of Rs. 1,96,300/- together with the solatium and interest at the admissible rate as per the statutory provision. Therefore, we modify the award from Rs. 2,48,600/- and pass an award of Rs. 1,96,300/- (one lakh ninety-six thousand three hundred rupees) together with solatium and interest at the admis¬sible rate under the Act. The appeal is accordingly allowed in part and the cross-objection is dismissed. Both the parties are directed to bear their respective cost of litigation. Hearing fee is assessed at contested scale. A. K. SAMANTARAY, J. I agree. Appeal allowed in part.