ORDER 13.03.2013This appeal is directed against the award passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Keonjhar in L.A. M.J.C. No.69 of 2002 refusing higher compensation as prayed for by the claimant/appellant. An area of Ac.1.75 decimals of land pertaining to Plot No.851 under Khata No.204/2 of Mouza-Kabitra belonging to the appellant was acquired by the Land Acquisition Officer, Daitarty Bansapani Railway Line, Keonjhar. From the body of the impugned award, it is found that the land was acquired vide declaration No.7415 dated 11.2.1994 of the Government of Orissa published in the Extra Ordinary, Orissa Gazette No.244 date 21.2.1994 and a sum of Rs.73,615/- was assessed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Daitary Banspani Railway Link, Keonjhar towards compensation therefor. Being aggrieved, the claimants made an application for a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for determination of higher and reasonable compensation. In order to substantiate the claim for higher compensation, the claimant/appellant examined herself as P.W.1 and an advocate clerk as P.W.2 and exhibited one registered sale deed (Ext.2). On the other hand, the respondent-Special Land Acquisition Officer examined an Amin of his establishment as O.P.W.1 but did not adduce any documentary evidence. On consideration of the materials on record, learned referral Court held that the appellant had squarely failed to discharge her onus to justify enhancement of compensation. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Court is wrong in rejecting the registered sale deed (Ext.2) on the sole ground that neither the vendor nor the vendee, nor any of the attesting witness to the sale deed was examined by the appellant to prove that the sale transaction was a genuine transaction between willing vendor and willing vendee and the consideration as shown in the sale deed had actually passed under the deed. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand, argues in support of the impugned award contending that the appellant/claimant had utterly failed to adduce evidence even to the effect that the land sold under the sale deed Ext.2 and the land which is the subject matter of the award are similarly situated having advantages and/or potentiality. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand, argues in support of the impugned award contending that the appellant/claimant had utterly failed to adduce evidence even to the effect that the land sold under the sale deed Ext.2 and the land which is the subject matter of the award are similarly situated having advantages and/or potentiality. Relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Parameswari v. Punjab Electrical Board AIR 1994 SC 1142 , the learned referral Court has refused to accept the registered sale deed (Ext.2) observing that the claimant did not prove the sale transaction by adducing evidence either of the vendor or the vendee or any attesting witness. But, in The Land Acquisition Officer and Mandal Revenue Officer v. Nerasaih AIR (2001) SC 1117, the Hon'ble Apex Court have observed that certified copy of a sale deed can be considered without examining person connected with the transaction mentioned therein. It is further observed that there is no compulsion to the Court to accept such transaction as evidence but it is open to that Court to treat as evidence and that merely accepting that as evidence does not mean that the Court is bound to treat them as reliable evidence, Such sale transaction may be treated as evidence, just like any other evidence and it is for the Court to weigh all the pros and cons to decide whether such transaction can be relied on for understanding the real price of the land concerned. In the same judgment the Apex Court have further observed that the State has the burden to prove the market value of the lands acquired by it for which the State may have to depend upon the prices of land similarly situate which were transacted or sold in the recent past. In view of the aforesaid observation of the Apex Court, it is to be held that the referral Court went wrong in rejecting the sale transaction vide Ext.2. So far comparability of the acquired land with the land sold by Ext.2 is concerned, P.W.1 has stated in her deposition that both the lands situate in the same village and those are not far away from each other. The land sold under Ext.2 is Sarada-II in Kissam whereas the acquired land comes under Sarada-I classification. So far comparability of the acquired land with the land sold by Ext.2 is concerned, P.W.1 has stated in her deposition that both the lands situate in the same village and those are not far away from each other. The land sold under Ext.2 is Sarada-II in Kissam whereas the acquired land comes under Sarada-I classification. However, while Ext.2 reflects that the land sold under the deed is situate 150 feet away from the main road, there is no evidence whether the acquired land is that close to the main road. It further transpires that the former situates within ward No.14 of Keonjhar Municipality. There is no evidence as to whether the land which is the subject matter of this appeal is within the Municipality area. There is also no evidence as to what is the distance between the two pieces of land. Therefore, the learned lower Court rightly did not take Ext.2 into consideration. But then, it should not have dismissed the claimant's claim for revaluation without considering other evidence on record. In the absence of sale statistics as well as other evidence on contemporaneous transaction of land in the vicinity, capitalization method should have been adopted by the lower Court because in this case, the claimant has adduced oral evidence to the effect that the annual earning from the acquired land was more than Rs.30,000/- and there was cross-examination to that effect and in the cross-examination the appellant-claimant has stated that she used to raise two crops every year, out of which one crop was paddy and the other was Rabi crop. She has further claimed that she used to get 30 pauti of paddy and 10 to 12 quintals of Solab (BUTA) every year from the acquired land. Further, she admits that Solab crop was not raised every year as it was quite dependent on climatic conditions. It is not denied by the respondent-opposite party even by way of suggestion that the land was not fit for double crops. Presuming that the claimant has inflated the extent of annual income in order to get higher compensation and allowing some concession towards the cost of agriculture operations, there can be a guess work to determine yearly income. It is not denied by the respondent-opposite party even by way of suggestion that the land was not fit for double crops. Presuming that the claimant has inflated the extent of annual income in order to get higher compensation and allowing some concession towards the cost of agriculture operations, there can be a guess work to determine yearly income. Considering the extent of the acquired land and the evidence adduced by the claimant the yearly income from the acquired land is determined as Rs.20,000/- and adopting multiplier 12' the valuation of the acquired land is determined at Rs.2,4,000/-. Consequently, it is held that the impugned order of dismissal of the reference is not sustainable. In the result, the appeal is allowed on contest without cost and the impugned order is set aside. The market value of the acquired land is determined at Rs.2,40,000/- The claimant appellant is entitled to get that amount as compensation in addition to all statutory benefits contemplated under Section 23(1-A), 23(2) and 28 of the Act. The respondent-opposite party is directed to make payment of the enhanced compensation and the other statutory benefits after adjusting the sums already received by the claimant. Appeal allowed.