JUDGMENT : S. Panda, J. - This appeal has been filed by the claimant against the award dated 2.12.1994 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sambalpur, in L.A. Misc. Case No. 97 of 1986 claiming higher compensation. 2. Brief facts of the case are as follows: The different plots of land of the claimant-appellant appertaining to Knata No. 13 of village Maneswar in the district of Sambalpur was acquired for Talcher-Sambalpur Railway link by virtue of Declaration No. 29164 dated 1.6.1985 published in E.O.G. No. 844 dated 11.6.1985. The Land Acquisition Collector assessed the valuation of the land and awarded compensation of Rs. 1,600 for the land. The claimant received the said compensation and filed an objection for enhancement of the same which was referred to the Civil Courts u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (in short, "the Act"). In the objection filed by the claimant, she had specifically stated that the acquired land is suitable for homestead and it is also surrounded by Deogarh road in the east, Electrical Sub-Station in the West, Radio Station in the North and a canal colony buildings in the South. 3. Considering the potency of the land, the claimant claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 3,000/- per decimal. In support of her case, the claimant examined four witnesses and filed three documentary evidence out of which the certified copy of the judgment passed by this. Court in F.A. No. 183 of 1990 was marked Ext.3. The Respondent-Opposite party also examined one witness and file one document. The referral court after taking into consideration the oral evidence adduced by the parties and on the basis of the award passed in L.A. Misc. Case No. 77 of 1988 assessed the valuation of the acquired land at Rs. 800/ - per decimal. 4. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that though in First Appeal No. 183 of 1990 disposed of on 2.3.1994, which was marked as Ext.3, this Court has determined the valuation of the land acquired in 1985 in the same village Maneswar at Rs. 1,50,000/- per acre, the referral court instead of taking into consideration the said judgment, on the concession of the Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner before it, has determined the compensation which is at a lower rate. 1,50,000/- per acre, the referral court instead of taking into consideration the said judgment, on the concession of the Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner before it, has determined the compensation which is at a lower rate. He further submits that without any contemporaneous document, the Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) should not have acceded to the submission of the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner before it. 5. Learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State submits that the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) has rightly determined the valuation of the acquired land and thus the impugned award passed by him needs no interference by this Court. 6. Law is well settled that there was an element of guesswork inherent in most cases involving determination of the market value of the acquired land. In the present case, since the referral court has not taken into consideration the evidence adduced by the claimant, i.e., the earlier judgment passed by this Court in First Appeal No. 183 of 1990 disposed of on 2.3.1994 which was marked as Ext. 3 and he has determined the market value of the acquired land on a rational guess-work which is reasonable. 7. After going through the material available on record and considering the submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that the year of notification u/s 4(1) of the Act in the present case is same as regards the land involved in First Appeal No. 183 of 1990 disposed of on 2.3.1994 which was marked as Ext. 3. The amount of compensation cannot be ascertained with mathematical accuracy. A comparable instance has to be identified having regard to the proximity from time angle as well as situation angle. For determining the market value of the land under acquisition, suitable adjustment has to be made having regard to the various positive and negative factors. 8. Therefore, as the advantages and disadvantages available to the land acquired in the present case are not similar to the land involved in First Appeal No. 183 of 1990, the referral court has rightly determined the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 800/- per decimal. Thus, the impugned award passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sambalpur in L.A. Misc. Case No. 97 of 1986 is confirmed. 9. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Final Result : Dismissed