JUDGMENT A. K. PARICHHA, J. : This appeal is filed by the State against the order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dharmagarh in MJC No.2 of 2000 answering a reference under Section 18 of the L.A. Act (in short, ‘the Act’). 2. Ac.0.43 decimals of land appertaining to Plot No.920 (Atamamuli-Ac.0.25 dec.) and Plot No.930 (Ataunhari-Ac.0.18 dec.) under Khata No.36 of mouza Kebdi belonging to the respondents were acquired by the State of Orissa for construction of Kebdi Minor and Br. Chhendia Sub-minor under Upper Indravati Irrigation Project vide notification No. 51492 dated 18.11.1995 and declara¬tion No.6315 dated 6.2.1997. The Zone Officer, Land Acquisition, U.I.P.. Kusumkhunti after conducting enquiry under Section 11 of the Act awarded compensation of Rs.9014/- for the said land. The claimant-respondents received that amount under protest and requested for reference of the matter to the civil Court for determination of the proper market value of the acquired land. Consequently, the matter came up before the learned Civil Judge in the above noted MJC. 3. To substantiate the claim of higher compensation, the respondent-claimants examined three witnesses only and produced the certified copies of some sale deeds, which were marked as Exts. 1 to 5. The Land Acquisition Collector examined one witness and produced the attested true copies of working sheet and sale statistics as Exts. A & B respectively. On consideration of the evidence available on record and the surrounding circumstances, learned referred Court came to the conclusion that the market value of the acquired land at the time of acquisition and taking over possession was Rs.3,000/- per dec. He accordingly, directed payment of compensation along with statutory benefits provided under the L.A. Act to the claimants. Being unhappy with such order the State has preferred this present appeal. 4. Mr. Sangram Das, learned counsel appearing for the appellant challenges the correctness and legality of the impugned order on the following grounds: (i) The learned trial Court relied on sale deeds involved in small patches of land for determining the market value of larger patches of acquired land although the settled legal position is that transactions in respect of small patches of land do not offer proper guideline and basis for determining the market value of larger piece of acquired land. (ii) The learned referral Court relied on sale deeds, which had been executed shortly before the acquisition of the land, forget¬ting the settled legal position that the sale instances immedi¬ately prior to the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act should not be relied as possibility of those transactions being manufactured for claiming higher rate of compensation cannot be ruled out. (iii) The learned referral Court proceeded in treating dif¬ferent kisam of land as similar, which was contrary to the set¬tled legal position that each variety of land carry different market value. According to Mr. Das, the market value assessed by the learned referral Court is unreasonable on the higher side and is not supported by the evidence on record. 5. Mr. D. Mund, learned counsel appearing for the claim¬ants-respondents countered the above argument with the submission that the acquired land is also a small patch of land situated inside Dharmagarh town,which is fit for homestead and therefore, the learned referral Court did not commit any error in assessing the market value of this land @ Rs.3,000/- per dec., particularly because in the sale statistics produced by the Land Acquisition Collector several pieces of similar lands had been shown sold at the same rate. He contends that the sale transactions, which took place immediately before the notification under Section 4(1) and acquisition of land form best piece of evidence to determine the market value of the acquired land and unless evidence is there to show that such documents were fake and manipulated ones, the same should be accepted as reliable piece of evidence. He explains that despite the description of the kisam of the land in the settlement records, the lands, which are fit for homestead and situated inside the town, virtually fetch the same rate and therefore, the learned referral Court did not commit any error in determining uniform rate for both varieties of land involved. 6. The evidence of P.Ws. clearly reveal that the acquired lands situate close to the school, colleges and Govt. offices and that it is fit for homestead. They also stated that the lands in that area were being sold @ Rs.3,000/- or more per dec. The sale documents, Ext.4 which relates to a transaction some time before acquisition of the land show that the lands under that area were being sold for Rs.3,000/- per dec. offices and that it is fit for homestead. They also stated that the lands in that area were being sold @ Rs.3,000/- or more per dec. The sale documents, Ext.4 which relates to a transaction some time before acquisition of the land show that the lands under that area were being sold for Rs.3,000/- per dec. There is nothing on record which show that the sale deeds relied on by the claimants were fake or fabricated ones. The sale statistics produced by the Land Acquisition Collector also contains entries to show that several pieces of land of the same area had been sold at the rate of Rs.3 lakhs per acre. So, there was good and valid reason for the learned referral Court to infer that the market value of the acquired land was Rs.3,000/- per dec. at the relevant point of time. It is worthwhile to note that the transactions under Ext.4 relate to Ac.0.40 dec. of land and the acquired land of the claimants measure Ac.0.43 dec. and both the lands were of same variety. So, it cannot be said that the learned referral Court used the sale statistics of small patch of land to determine the market value of the acquired land. No doubt the acquired lands were of two varieties, but in the evidence if has been clarified that both the lands are fit for homestead and are virtually same type of land. The sale statistics produced by the Land Acquisi¬tion Collector also show that both varieties of land acquired were being sold at Rs.3 lakhs per acre. So, the learned referral Court did not go wrong in assessing similar rate for both varie¬ties of land. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned award is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed on contest, but in the peculiar circumstances without any cost. Appeal dismissed.