JUDGMENT : A.K. Parichha, J. - The claimants are in appeal against the award dated 18.09.2001 passed by Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhubaneswar in L.A. Misc. Case No. 780 of 1994. The fact matrix of the case in summary is as follows: Plot No. 2281, 2246, 2247, 2248 under Khata No. 920 of Mouja-Chhanaghar measuring Ac.1.670 decimals belonging to the claimant-Appellants was acquired by the State Government for construction of Major Petroleum Depot vide Notification No. 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act (herein after referred to as 'the Act') published in the Orissa Gazette on 5.6.1993. The Land Acquisition Officer, Puri, who is the Respondent, after making inquiry u/s 11 of the Act fixed the market rate of the acquired land at Rs. 2,50,000/- per acre and awarded compensation at that rate. The claimants received the compensation amount under protest and prayed for reference of the matter to the Civil Court for adjudication of the correct market value of the land and in consequence the matter came up before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhubaneswar in the above noted MJC. 2. The claimants examined one of them, namely, Prafaulla Kumar Behera, who proved the reference u/s 18 of the Act as Ext. 1, the copy of the notification u/s 4(1) of the Act as Ext. 2, certified copy of sale deed No. 678 dated 23.4.1993 as Ext. 3, the village map as Ext. 4. They also examined the vendor of Ext. 3 as P.W. 2. The Land Acquisition Officer examined his Amin as OPW.1 and proved the certified copies of five registered sale deeds as Exts. A to F, the working sheet for fixation of the market value as Ext. G, the application of claimant No. 1 dated 9.3.1994 as Ext. H, two village maps as Exts. J & K. On consideration of these evidence, the Referral Court by Order Dated 27.09.1996 assessed the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 6,00,000/- per acre. The State preferred appeal against that award vide F.A. No. 43 of 1993. This Court by Judgment dated 20th June, 2001 allowed that first appeal and remanded to the matter to the Referral Court with observation that the reference should be re-decided reheard after giving opportunity to the parties to adduce further corroborative evidence on the issue of market value of the land, if they so like. This Court by Judgment dated 20th June, 2001 allowed that first appeal and remanded to the matter to the Referral Court with observation that the reference should be re-decided reheard after giving opportunity to the parties to adduce further corroborative evidence on the issue of market value of the land, if they so like. The Referral Court accordingly gave opportunity to the parties to adduce further evidence. The claimants examined P.W.1 who gave further statement, besides examining the scribe of the sale deed No. 1627 dated 19.2.1992, who proved the sale deed as Ext. 5. The Respondent re-examined Opposite Party No. 1, who stated that he relied upon his evidence adduced earlier. No further document was filed by the Respondents. The Referral Court re-assessed all the evidence and statements of the parties and came to conclusion that the market value of the acquired land as assessed by the Land Acquisition Authorities u/s 11 of the Act is just and proper. He accordingly, directed payment of compensation to the claimants for the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 2.50 lakhs per acre along with the statutory benefits. This award is now under challenge in this appeal. 3. Mr. Gajendra, Learned Counsel for the Appellants submitted that the Referral Court did not consider the evidence regarding the value and potency of the acquired land properly and also failed to take note that the lands of the same village acquired for the same purpose have been compensated at the rate of Rs. Six lakhs per acre. He specifically stated that the lands involved in L.A. Misc. Case Nos. 252 of 1995, 782 of 1994, 266 of 1995 and 353 of 1995, were acquired for the same purpose and the Referral Court awarded compensation for those lands at the rate of Rs. Six lakhs per acre and some of these awards were not challenged by the State in any appeal. According to him, when the State has not challenged the award of Rs. Six lakhs per acre for similar lands of the area acquired for the same purpose, compensation at that rate should also be given to the present claimants. In support of this plea(Sic) cited the cases of Union of India (UOI) Vs. Harinder Pal Singh and Others, ; Om Prakash (D) by Lrs. and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Another, ; Anar Singh Vs. In support of this plea(Sic) cited the cases of Union of India (UOI) Vs. Harinder Pal Singh and Others, ; Om Prakash (D) by Lrs. and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Another, ; Anar Singh Vs. Union of India, and Thakarsibhai Devjibhai and Others Vs. Executive Engineer, Gujarat and Another. Mr. Gajendra also stated that the acquired land situates in an urban commercial area and had great potency for industrial purpose and when the sale deeds Exts. 3 and 5 revealed that the lands were being sold in that area at the rate more than Rs. Six lakhs per acre, there is no reason why the Referral Court did not accept that the acquired land had market value of Rs. Six lakhs per acre at the time of acquisition. 4. Mr. Sangram Das, Learned Additional Standing Counsel on the other hands supported the impugned award and stated that the land sold under Exts. 3 and 5 are of different nature and are situated in different villages than the acquired land for which reason the Referral Court rightly declined to adopt the rates noted in those sale deeds. He stated that there is no hard and fast rule that all lands acquired under same notification are to be compensated at the same rate because value of each land depends on its location, character and potency and for that reason the award passed in respect of other lands cannot be adopted for the acquired land of the claimants. In support of this contention, he relies on the case of Sakhi Gopal Regulated Market Committee v. Mahesh Ch. Hota and Ors. 92 (2001) CLT 662. Mr. Das, also stated that only in one case the State decided not to file appeal because the land acquired was very small in size and rate of compensation awarded for that land was justified. He denied the proposition that in many cases involving lands of same village the State Government has accepted the award of the Referral Court at the rate of Rs. Six lakhs per acre. 5. There is no dispute that Ac.1.67 decimals of land situated in Mouja-Chhanghar belonging to the claimants was acquired by the State. He denied the proposition that in many cases involving lands of same village the State Government has accepted the award of the Referral Court at the rate of Rs. Six lakhs per acre. 5. There is no dispute that Ac.1.67 decimals of land situated in Mouja-Chhanghar belonging to the claimants was acquired by the State. As per the evidence of P.W. 1 this land situates near the gas bottling plant of Hindustan Petroleum and is only half kilometer away from Jatani Bazar and Railway Station, and that there are electricity, telephone and water supply facilities available to the area where this land situates. This claim of P.W.1 was supported by P.W. 2 and there was no evidence from the side of the Land Acquisition Officer to rebut this claim. The Referral Court was also satisfied that the acquired land situates near the gas bottling plant and has the facilities of road, electricity and water supply and that this land had the potency of an industrial plot. Regarding market value, the claimants relied on sale deed, Ext. 3 initially, but after remand they also proved Ext. 5. In Ext. 3 Ac.0.26 decimals of 'Melabari' land in the neighboring village-Kudiari had been sold at the rate of Rs. 8.00 lakhs per acre. Ext. 5 shows that Ac.9.019.53 decimals of land of village-Kudiari had been sold along with a house thereon for Rs. 25,000/- on 19.12.1992. These lands situate in a different village and they were basically homestead lands. The land of the claimants on the other hand, situates in village-Chhana Ghara and are Puratan Patiata Kisam land. It is common knowledge that homestead lands always fetch higher market price than agricultural and other varieties of lands. No doubt, Exts. 4, J and K show that Kudiari and Chhana Ghara are neighboring villages, but there is no clear evidence that the acquired land and the lands sold in Exts. 3 and 5 situate near each other or carry similar potency. That being the situation, Learned Referral Court cannot be blamed for not adopting the rates of lands noted in Exts. 3 and 5 for the acquired land of the claimants. Exts. A to F are certified copies of the sale deeds which contain sale transactions of lands of Mouja-Chhana Ghar during the relevant period. These documents show that land in the villages were being sold approximately at the rate of Rs. 3 and 5 for the acquired land of the claimants. Exts. A to F are certified copies of the sale deeds which contain sale transactions of lands of Mouja-Chhana Ghar during the relevant period. These documents show that land in the villages were being sold approximately at the rate of Rs. 2 lakhs per acre. However, there is no indication that these lands had the facilities which the acquired land of the claimants had or that these lands were situated in an industrial area. In that situation, by use of legal commonsense one can say that the acquired land of the claimants had better market value than the lands' sold in Exts. A to F. 6. The final question is whether the higher rate as contemplated by the Land Acquisition Authority is acceptable or whether the rate claimed by the present Appellants is acceptable. In this regard, Mr. Gajendra submitted that in L.A. Misc. Case Nos. 251 of 1995, 782 of 1994, 266 of 1995, 253 of 1995 and 268 of 1995, the Referral Court awarded compensation for the lands at the rate of Rs. Six lakhs per acre and the State did not challenge the award passed in L.A. Misc. Case No. 253 of 1995 and the F.A. No. 349 of 1998 filed against the award in L.A. Misc. Case No. 268 of 1995 was dismissed by this Court and for that reason now the claimants should be paid compensation for the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 6.00 lakhs per acre. So far as F.A. No. 349 of 1998, the same was not admitted for want of limitation and as per the statement of Learned Additional Standing Counsel and the counter affidavit, no appeal was preferred in respect of L.A. Misc. Case No. 253 of 1995, as the land involved was very small, measuring only Ac.0.10 decimals. In respect of the other awards, appeals have been filed. No instance is cited by Mr. Gajendra where this Court ruled that lands similar to the land of the present claimants acquired under the same notification are to be compensated at the rate of Rs. Six lakhs per acre. In the cases of Union of India v. Harindar Pal Singh and Ors. (supra), Om Prakas (D) by LRs. and Ors. (supra) and Thakarsi Bhai Devji Bhai and Ors. (supra) cited by Mr. Six lakhs per acre. In the cases of Union of India v. Harindar Pal Singh and Ors. (supra), Om Prakas (D) by LRs. and Ors. (supra) and Thakarsi Bhai Devji Bhai and Ors. (supra) cited by Mr. Gajendra, it was essentially said that lands situated in neighbouring villages having some topography potency and advantages can be consolidated to one unit. But it was also said that such action is permissible when there is little to choose between one stretch of land and another. It has been observed in the case of Sakhi Gopal Regulated Market Committee (supra) by a Division Bench of this Court that the doctrine of equality and determination of payment of same compensation for all claimants involved in the same notification is not a good principle and that only when both the lands are proved to be possessed of same advantages, features etc., equal compensation is permissible. The Apex Court also expressed the same view in the case of Basant Kumar v. Union of India (1996) 1 SCO 542. In the order of remand the F.A. No. 43 of 1997 this Court extended opportunity to the parties to adduce additional evidence in support of the market value of the acquired land before the Referral Court. There the claimants did not produce any order of this Court or any award of the Referral Court, which had not been challenged in appeal. So, there was no scope for the Referral Court and there is now no scope for this Court to compare the facts and circumstances involved in those cases with the facts and circumstances of the present case to determine whether the lands possessed the same advantages, features etc. Now the Appellants want to introduce the certified copies of the award passed by the Referral Court in some cases as additional evidence. As has been said earlier, none of the awards except the award in L.A. Misc. Case No. 253 of 1995 has assumed finality. So, no useful purpose will be served by accepting the copies of these orders as additional evidence. It will also not be appropriate to accept such documents at this stage as it will deprive the Respondents from leading rebuttal evidence. Be that as it may, even if the award in L.A. Misc. Case No. 253 of 1995 has assumed finality. So, no useful purpose will be served by accepting the copies of these orders as additional evidence. It will also not be appropriate to accept such documents at this stage as it will deprive the Respondents from leading rebuttal evidence. Be that as it may, even if the award in L.A. Misc. Case No. 253 of 1995 is taken into consideration it cannot be forgotten that the said award is for a small patch of land measuring only Ac.0.10 decimals and the Kisam of that land was also different from the land of the present claimants. It is common knowledge that small patches of lands particularly, homestead lands are always sold at a higher rate than large patches of similar lands. Therefore, it is not prudent to adopt the rate at which small patches of land are sold while determining the marketvalue of larger patches of land. However, in the cases of Lucknow Development Authority Vs. Krishna Gopal Lahoti and Others, & Thakarsi Bhai Devji Bhai and Ors. (supra), the Apex Court observed that there is no absolute rule that rates fixed for small plots are to be kept out of consideration and that if other statistics are not available then such rate can be taken note of and can be lashed by 1/3rd approximately in determining the rate of larger patch of similar lands. Here again this observation is not an absolute one and can vary from situation to situation. In the present case, the acquired land measures Ac.1.67 decimals whereas the land involved in LA. Misc. Case No. 253 of 1995 measures only Ac.0.10 decimals. If the principle laid down by the Apex Court is followed then the rate of land fixed in L.A. Misc. Case No. 253 of 1995 is to be slashed by 1/3rd in order to determine the rate of large patch of land of the claimants. In that process, the market rate of the acquired land can be set at Rs. Four lakhs per acre approximately. 7. In the result, therefore, the impugned award is modified to the extent that the claimant-Appellants would get compensation for the acquired land at the rate of Rs. Four lakhs per acre, besides the statuary benefits awarded by the Referral Court. Consequently, the appeal is allowed in part on contest, but in the above circumstances, without any cost. 7. In the result, therefore, the impugned award is modified to the extent that the claimant-Appellants would get compensation for the acquired land at the rate of Rs. Four lakhs per acre, besides the statuary benefits awarded by the Referral Court. Consequently, the appeal is allowed in part on contest, but in the above circumstances, without any cost. Final Result : Allowed