The market value of land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act must be determined by reference to the price which a willing seller might have reasonably expected for similar property from a willing purchaser at the date of notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act.

A. MISRA, J.

( 1 ) THE State is the appellant against an award passed by the Special Judicial officer at Cuttack performing the functions of a court on a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act I of 1894 (thereinafter to be referred to as the Act ).

( 2 ) A 2. 36-51/2 kadis of land situate In village Bhitargarh was acquired in pursuance of a notification issued under Section 4 (1) of the Act on 31-10-1961, though in the impugned order the date of acquisition has been erroneously mentioned as 5-9-1963, The Land Acquisition Officer awarded a total compensation of Rupees 816. 10 fixing the value of the acquired land at Rs. 709. 65 and additional compensation by way of solatium at Rs. 106. 45. The respondent claimed Rs. 5,000/- per acre towards the value of the acquired land, Rs. 3,000/towards the value of the house and tank alleged to have existed thereon, Rs. 5,000/- towards the embankment of the land, Rs. 15,000/- as damages for the loss of fishing, besides some amount towards the loss of income from paddy dealers and loss of income from rent. On objection being filed to the adequacy of compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, a reference was made under Section 18 of the Act in which the impugned order was passed.

( 3 ) 3 witnesses were examined on behalf of the respondent and 3 witnesses on behalf of the State. P. W. 1 is the objector who deposed that he was getting 5 to 6 bharans of paddy per acre annually, besides fish worth Rs. 7,000/ -. Rs. 600/-from grazing and Rs. 1,400/- from business men using the acquired land. According to him, the value of the acquired land will be Rs. 5,000/- per acre. P. Ws, 2 and 3, in substance, supported his statement, except that they assessed the income from fish, grazing and from business men using the acquired land at lesser amounts. In addition to the oral evidence, respondent also relied on Ex 1, the award in another land acquisition case of the same village in which compensation was awarded for 10. 28. 6 kadis of land at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- per acre. O. P. W: 1 is the revenue Inspector of Paradip Land Acquisition office and he says that he saw the acquired land only in July and September. 1964. O. P. W. 2 prepared the sales statistics (Ex. A) on the basis of information obtained from the Sub-Registrar's office. O. P. W. 3 speaks about service of summons on Hari Moha-patra and jairam Majhi for production Of the originals of certain sale deeds. In addition, certified copies of three sale deeds marked Exts. D to D/2 were sought to be relied upon by the State to prove the prevailing price of lands in that locality in or about the date of acquisition.

( 4 ) THE court below held that Ex. A and Exs. D to D/2 are Inadmissible in evidence. It came to the conclusion that Ex. 1 cannot be a basis for determining the value of the acquired land and the evidence of the P. Ws. is exaggerated in respect of the value deposed to by them. At the same time, it fixed the value of the acquired land at Rs. 1,200/- per acre observing as follows:--"considering the entire evidence on record, the nature, situation, extent, income and potential value of the acquired land, I am inclined to be of the opinion that the value of the acquired land was Rs. 1,200/- per acre at the time of acquisi-tion". The other items of claim made by the respondent have been disallowed. The respondent not having preferred any cross-appeal or cross-obi ection against the order disallowing his claim in respect of other items, that finding has become conclusive. Therefore, the only point for determination in this appeal is whether the finding of the court below about the market value of the acquired land is correct and based on evidence.

( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for appellant assails the impugned order on the following grounds; (1) An initial error has been committed by the court below in assessing the value of the land in question under a mistaken impression that the acquisition was in September, 1963, thou