JUDGMENT A. K. PARICHHA, J. : This appeal is directed against the order passed by learned Subordinate Judge, Bhubaneswar in Land Acquisition Misc. Case No.211 of 1988 answering a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter called ‘the Act’) involving Ac.0.705 decimals of land belonging to the appel¬lants and proforma-respondents. 2. Land measuring Ac.0.705 decimals in Khata No.158 Plot Nos.880 & 883/1627 in Mouza Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar was acquired by the State Government for sewerage treatment plant vide notifi¬cation dated 2.4.1987 u/s. 4(1) the Act and possession of that land was also taken by the State Government. The Land Acquisition Collector, Puri determined the market value of the land @ Rs.2 lakhs per acre, but the appellants and proforma-respondents filed application for a reference u/s. 18 of the Act and on such appli¬cation the matter was referred to the learned Subordinate Judge, Bhubaneswar, who registered the reference as L.A. Misc.Case No.211 of 1988, conducted an enquiry by taking oral and document¬ary evidence of the parties and determined the market value of the acquired land @ Rs.3 lakhs per acre. Not being satisfied with such determination, the appellants have filed this appeal claiming inter alia that the market value of the acquired land should be fixed at Rs.6 lakhs per acre. 3. Mr. Sarat Kumar Gajendra, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the acquired land situates near Oberoi Hotel of Bhubaneswar city close to the National High-way where lands at the relevant time were being sold @ Rs.6 to 10 lakhs per acre. He alleges that although the appellants produced contemporary sale documents relating to sale of nearby lands, learned Referral Court unreasonably rejected the documents on the ground that those documents were not formally proved. According to him, such approach is against the provision of Section 51-A of the Act. Mr. Gajendra also submitted that although learned refer¬ral Court after perusing the sales statics relied by Respondent No.1 came to the conclusion that identical lands were sold @ Rs. 2 lakhs to Rs.7 lakhs during the relevant year, it did not assign any reason as to why and how the value of the land in question was determined @ Rs.3 lakhs per acre only. 2. Mr. 2 lakhs to Rs.7 lakhs during the relevant year, it did not assign any reason as to why and how the value of the land in question was determined @ Rs.3 lakhs per acre only. 2. Mr. Sangram Das, learned Add.Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1-State while supporting the im¬pugned order submitted that the notice Ext.1 did not reveal that amount of compensation noted was paid to the notice, the unregis¬tered agreement did not reveal that the land noted therein was actually sold, the certified copy of the sale deed, Ext.3, was not proved by the vendor, vendee or any attesting witness and, therefore, learned referral Court had every reason not to rely on those documents. He submitted that the oral and documentary evidence produced by the appellants not being reliable or help¬ful, learned referral Court had to rely on the sales statistics supplied by the Land Acquisition Officer. He indicated that because the statistics related to small pieces of lands and the acquired land of the appellants and proforma-respondents was a big one, the referral Court had to adopt a moderate rate applying commonsense, which is permissible under law. 3. Admittedly the acquired lands are situated near Oberoi Hotel in Nayapalli Mouza and they were acquired by the State for sewerage treatment plant. Basing on the sale statistics prevalent in the year 1986-87 the Land Acquisition Collector, Puri deter¬mined the market price of the acquired land @ Rs.2 lakhs per acre. The appellants relied on Ext.1, which is a notice issued by L.A.O. to one Karunakar Majhi and others to accept the compensa¬tion amount. Ext.2 is an unregistered agreement and Ext.3 is a certified copy of a registered sale deed. Learned referral Court rejected Ext.1 as the persons concerned were not examined. It rejected Ext.2, because there was no evidence to show that the land was actually sold. Ext.3 was rejected because it was a certified copy and the vendor, vendee or attesting witnesses did not come forward to prove the document. Ext.2 is an unregistered document and when no one connected with it came forward to prove the document, rejection of the same was justified. 4. Ext.3 was rejected because it was a certified copy and the vendor, vendee or attesting witnesses did not come forward to prove the document. Ext.2 is an unregistered document and when no one connected with it came forward to prove the document, rejection of the same was justified. 4. In the case of Land Acquisition Officer and Mandal Revenue Officer v. Narasaiah, AIR 2001 SC 1117 , the apex Court clarified that market value of acquired land can be determined by taking into consideration sale deeds relating to similar lands situated in the vicinity and in doing so certified copy of sale deeds can be relied upon without examining the vendor, vendee or anybody else connected with the sale. Section 51-A of the Act which came into force by Act 68 of 1994 also contemplates as follows : “In any proceeding under this Act a certified copy of a document registered under the Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), including a copy given under Sec.57 of that Act; may be accepted as evidence of the transaction recorded in such docu¬ment.” So, learned referral Court was unjust in rejecting Ext.3 on the ground that vendor or vendee or attesting witness was not examined to prove the document. Exts.1 and 1/a are notices issued by the Land Acquisition Collector. When the genuineness of these documents were not challenged by the State, there was no reason to discard these documents on the ground that the persons noticed were not examined. Ext.1 series show that the Land Acquisition Collector offered Rs.1,86,340/- for Ac.1.210 decimals of land and Rs.36,190/- for Ac.0.235 decimals of land of Mouza Nayapalli. Ext.3 shows that Ac.0.060 decimals of Gharabari land of Nayapalli was sold for Rs.36,000/- in the year 1985. Ext. A contains the sales statistics of a large number of lands of Mouza Nayapalli effected between 24.4.1986 to 24.4.1987. A careful look into the sales statistics noted in Ext.A would show that Sarad-III type of lands of Nayapalli were sold @ Rs.1,48,148/- to Rs.7,81,250/-. Though the above rates were the extremes, most of the sales were made @ ranging between Rs.2 lakhs to Rs.5.43 lakhs. The rate noted in Ext.1 series is less than Rs. 2 lakhs per acre whereas the rate noted in Ext.3 comes to Rs.6 lakhs per acre. Though the above rates were the extremes, most of the sales were made @ ranging between Rs.2 lakhs to Rs.5.43 lakhs. The rate noted in Ext.1 series is less than Rs. 2 lakhs per acre whereas the rate noted in Ext.3 comes to Rs.6 lakhs per acre. It is to be noted that the land involved in Ext.3 as well as the sales sta¬tistics Ext.A are for comparatively smaller pieces of house plots whereas the land involved in the present case is a fairly large one measuring Ac.0.705 decimals. As has been said in the case of Smt. Kausalya Devi Bogra and others v. L.A.O., Aurangabad and another, AIR 1984 SC 892 when large tracts are acquired, the transactions in respect of small properties do not offer a proper guideline. Therefore, the valuation in transaction in regard to smaller property is not to be taken as a real basis for determin¬ing the compensation for larger tracts of property and for deter¬mining the market value of a large property on the basis of a sale transaction for smaller property a deduction should be given in the rate available for small property. In the present case the documents produced by the parties show that small house plots of village Nayapalli were being sold @ Rs.2 lakhs to Rs.6 lakhs per acre during the year 1986-87. The rate for larger property might have been a little less than the rate prevalent for small proper¬ty. Keeping these in mind probably learned referral Court adopted a via media rate of Rs. 3 lakhs per acre. He, however, overlooked the fact that the acquired land situates close to the national high-way and a Five Star Hotel inside the city of Bhubaneswar simply because P.W.1 was unable to say the names of the owners of the houses situated nearby. When the land situates inside the city of Bhubaneswar in a prime locality, the market rate of the land should have been fixed at a little higher than the via media rate. Needless to say that market value of a piece of land cannot be determined by arithmetical calculation or equation with some sales statistics without putting some amount of prudent guess work. Needless to say that market value of a piece of land cannot be determined by arithmetical calculation or equation with some sales statistics without putting some amount of prudent guess work. Taking the sales statistics and processing it with prudent guess work, I am of the considered opinion that the market value of the acquired land on the date of notification U/s. 4(1) of the Act must have some where in the vicinity of Rs.4 lakhs per acre. 7. For all the aforesaid reasons, the order of the refer¬ral Court is modified to the extent that the rate of the acquired land shall be Rs.4 lakhs per acre instead of Rs.3 lakhs per acre set in the impugned order. The petitioner shall be entitled to get compensation at that rate along with the statutory benefits as per the Act. 8. The appeal is thus partly allowed on contest. No costs. Appeal allowed partly.