JUDGMENT S. PANDA, J. — This First Appeal is directed against the judgment/award dated 21.8.2001 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nuapada in M.J.C. No.41 of 2000 in a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter re¬ferred to as ‘the Act’). 2. The facts narrated in the record are as follows : The Land Acquisition Officer/Land Acquisition Collector, Nuapada acquired the claimant’s land measuring an area of Ac.0.5 decimals appertaining to Plot No.190 under Khata No.27 in mouza Rajpur Nuapada for construction of Sub-Minor Canal under the Upper Jonk Medium Irrigation Project of Government of Orissa. Accordingly, notification bearing No.13630 under Section 4(1) of the Act, was issued on 16.3.1998 which was published in the concerned locality on 9.5.1998. The said land was demarcated for acquisition. Subsequently, the Government withdrew acquisition of Ac.0.2 decimal of land from the said demarcated land of Ac.0.5 decimals. Hence, Ac.0.3 decimal of land was finally decided for acquisition. The type of land was agricultural land. 3. The Land Acquisition Officer, Nuapada awarded the compensation at Rs.1358/- towards the cost of the acquired land. The claimants received the said amount on protest and filed their objection under Section 18 of the Act for higher compensation. The Land Acquisition Collector also filed his counter to the said petition for higher compensation. The claimants in their objec¬tion petition specifically stated that the type of land acquired by the Land Acquisition Officer was Berna and the compensation determined by the Land Acquisition Collector is very low. In support of higher compensation, they filed six documents includ¬ing one registered sale deed which is marked as Ext.3 and exam¬ined five witnesses. The Land Acquisition Officer examined two witnesses and also exhibited five documents which are marked as Exts. A to E. On the basis of the sale deed and the working sheet, the respondents claimed that in the years 1996 and 1997 Berna Kissam land has been sold at Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.3,50,000/- per acre respectively. Thus, they are entitled to Rs.10,000/- per decimal in respect of the acquired land measuring Ac.0.3 decimal and Rs.2,10,000/- for severance damage as the rest portion of the land was divided into two parts due to excavation of the canal and the land became useless. Thus, they are entitled to Rs.10,000/- per decimal in respect of the acquired land measuring Ac.0.3 decimal and Rs.2,10,000/- for severance damage as the rest portion of the land was divided into two parts due to excavation of the canal and the land became useless. The learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) after analysing the oral as well as the docu¬mentary evidence determined the valuation of the acquired land at Rs.9,00,000/- per acre and he fixed the rate of compensation for severance damage at Rs.3,60,000/- per acre for the remaining portion of Plot No.190. Accordingly, the compensation for Ac.0.3 decimal of land was calculated at Rs.25,642/- and for severance Rs.75,600/-. The referral Court also awarded all statutory bene¬fits under Sections 23 and 28 of the Act. Being aggrieved by the said award, the Land Acquisition Officer has filed the present appeal. 4. The learned Additional Standing Counsel vehemently argued that the learned Civil Judge has awarded the compensation at a higher rate and arbitrarily determined the market value of the acquired land as well as damage for severance. The available sale instances have not taken into consideration while preparing the sale statistics as per the working sheet. Hence, interference of this Court is necessary. Mr. D. Mund, learned counsel appear¬ing for respondent No.1, submitted that the referral Court has rightly considered the evidence on record and determined the market value of the acquired land taking into consideration the materials available on record. Thus, the award does not warrant any interference of this Court. 5. On the aforesaid submissions of the parties, this Court examined the record and after going through the materials available on record and taking into consideration of fact that Nuapada Sub-division is the district headquarters after formation of the new district Kalahandi, this Court is of the view that the land has potency of homestead and being the district headquarters, importance of the area has been increasing from year to year. The learned Civil Judge has erroneously applied the principle of multiplier while contemporaneous sale deeds were available on records. This Court in First Appeal No.8 of 1994 disposed of on 5.9.2001, on the basis of contemporaneous sale deed, determined the market value of the land acquired in the same locality under a notification made in the year 1988-for Upper Jonk Irrigation Land at Rs.3,000/- per decimal. This Court in First Appeal No.8 of 1994 disposed of on 5.9.2001, on the basis of contemporaneous sale deed, determined the market value of the land acquired in the same locality under a notification made in the year 1988-for Upper Jonk Irrigation Land at Rs.3,000/- per decimal. Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts, in the present case this Court determines the value of the acquired land at Rs.6,000/- per decimals since in this case notification was made in the year 1998. So far as severance of the land is concerned, it appears from the record that a canal is running through the middle of the land of the claimants dividing Ac.0.24 decimals into two parts and from the sketch-map filed by the claimants it appears that the land has been damaged to some extent. Hence, the claimants are entitled to a cost of severance and this Court determines such cost at Rs.50,000/-. 6. So far as the statutory benefits under Section 23 of the Act is concerned, the claimants are entitled to all such statutory benefits and also the benefit under Section 28 of the Act. 7. With the above modification of the impugned award, the appeal is allowed. No costs. Appeal allowed.