In determining the market value of acquired land, courts can consider contemporaneous sale deeds or awards in earlier cases for similar lands, provided the similarity is established through oral evidence.

G. B. PATNAIK, J.

( 1 ) LAND Acquisition Officer, Ganjam, is the appellant in this appeal impugning the order of the Subordinate Judge, Berhampur, in Land Acquisition M. J. C. No. 185 of 1970 whereunder the learned Subordinate Judge has enhanced the market value of the acquired land and fixed the same at the rate of Rs. 25,000/- per acre. In addition, the learned Subordinate Judge has also awarded fifteen per cent solatium.

( 2 ) THE subject-matter of consideration in this appeal is 1. 35 cents of land appertaining to survey Ncs. 348/2f and 348/21 of village Bhapur acquired for the purpose of construction of a medical college in Berhampur town by a notification dt. 5-1-1982 (1962? ). Notification under S. 6 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'act') was published in the Orissa Gazette on 20-4-1962. The Land Acquisition Officer determined the market price of the land at the rate of Rupees 8,230/- per acre and also awarded fifteen per cent solatium. Objection to the award being filed by the claimant, reference was made to the Subordinate Judge under Section 18 of the Act and the learned Subordinate Judge after analysing the evidence adduced before him fixed the market value of the land at the rate of Rs. 25,000/- per acre. Before the learned Subordinate Judge on behalf of the Land Acquisition Officer, five sale deeds were exhibited being Exhibits 3 to 3/d, the village plan of Bhapur was exhibited being Ext. 1 and the Bata Sheet of Bhapur was exhibited being Ext. 2. The Land Acquisition Inspector got himself examined. On behalf of the ciaimant-objector, two previous awards of the Land Acquisition Officer pertaining to similar acqui-sitions. (Exts. A and B), certified copy of a registered sale deed (Ext. C) and certified copies of two judgments of the Subordinate Judge passed under Section 18 of the Act (Exts. D and E) were filed. Besides, three witnesses were examined in support of the claimant. It may be stated that the awards of the Land Acquisition Officer (Exts. A and B) as well as the orders of the Subordinate Judge (Exts. D and E) are in respect of similar acquisitions made for the purpose of construction of the medical college by the same notification issued under Section 4 (1) of the Act dated 5-1-1962. The learned Subordinate Judge after analysing the evidence on record came to hold Exts. D and E to be a guide for determining the market value for the acquired land in this case and accordingly determined the compensation at the rate of Rs. 25,000/- per acre.

( 3 ) LEARNED Advocate-General appearing for the appellant raised three contentions, namely-

(i) The learned Subordinate Judge committed an error of law in ignoring the evidence adduced on behalf of the State, namely sale deeds (Ext. 3 series): (ii) There is no evidence adduced on behalf of the claimant to correlate the lands covered under Exts. A, B, D and E with the acquired land with regard to the nature of land, the situation of the land and its other potential value and, therefore, Exts. A, B, D and E cannot serve as a guide for determining the market value of the acquired land, and (iii) The Subordinate Judge has committed an error of record, inasmuch as Ext. D relates to a plot of land in mauza Goilundi and not Bhapur (in which the acquired land situates in this case) as held by the learned Subordinate Judge.

Mr. Rath for the respondent on the other hand contends that the evidence of claimant's witnesses Nos. 1 to 3 and the documentary evidence (Exts. A to E) were sufficient materials on the basis of which the Subordinate Judge determined the market value of the acquired land and there has been no legal infirmity in the same. He also contended that for similar acquisitions for the same purpose acquired by the same notification, there are several judgments of the Orissa High Court in which the valuation of Rs. 25,000/- has been upheld and, therefore, the contentions raised by the learned Advocate-General have no force.

( 4 ) THE law wi