JUDGMENT This appeal is directed against award dated 15.4.1994 passed by IV Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Raipur in Land Acquisition M.J.C. No. 16 of 1987. Agricultural land of the appellant comprised in Kha. No. 38, en ambankment measuring area 0.96 acre and Khasra No. 39, a pond, measuring area 1.98 acres situated in village Shankarnagar in Raipur was acquired vide notifications dated 4.10.1974 and 3.1.1975 issued respectively under sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for purposes of the respondent M.P. Housing Board, Raipur. Compensation in respect of the said land was settled by means of an award by the Collector dated 15.10.1979. The compensation in relation to the land in Khasra No. 39 i.e. pond, was fixed at the rate of Rs. 20,000.00 per acre while for land in Khasra No. 38 which contained embankment was fixed at the rate of Rs. 30.000.00 per acre. Having not been satisfied with the award, the appellant moved the Collector, Raipur for making reference to the Civil Court for determination of adequate compensation. The Collector, Raipur, therehre, made a reference to the Civil Court. The Civil Court after considering the matter on merits passed the impugned award dated 15.4.1994 in MJC No. 16 of 1987 holding that the award given by the Collector was proper. This award is under challenge by means of the present appeal. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent, M.P. Housing Board. Learned counsel for the appellant made two fold submissions: (1) that the rate of compensation at 92 p. per square ft. for the plain land is inadequate; and (2) the rate of compensation determined for the land in Khasra No. 38 is not based on proper .appreciation of evidence. In regard to above submissions, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the claimants in support of their claim filed the sale-deed which was marked as Exhibit A but the same was not relied upon by the reference Court. He submitted that the sale-deed was brought in evidence to demonstrate that the land in the vicinity was sold at the higher rate than the rate at which the compensation was awarded. He submitted that the sale-deed was brought in evidence to demonstrate that the land in the vicinity was sold at the higher rate than the rate at which the compensation was awarded. The learned counsel for the respondent has contended that the reference Court has rightly accepted the award passed by the Collector under the Land Acquisition Act inasmuch as neither the vendor nor the vendee has been examined in support of the sale-deed. It is his further submission that barring the same there is no other evidence which warranted enhancement of the quantum determined by the Collector, and hence interference in this appeal is called for. On a perusal of the evidence and materials on record we find on behalf of the claimants a singular witness was examined. Though the sale-deed has been mat:ked as an Exhibit, neither the vendor nor the vendee has been examined. It has been held in the case of State of U.P. and another v. Rajendra Singh, AIR 1996 SC 1564 to the following effect : "It is settled law that in reference under, section 18 claimant being dissatisfied with the award of the Land Acquisition Officer, when the proceedings are taken under section 20 of the Act, burden is always on the claimant like plaintiff to adduce reliable and acceptable evidence to prove proper, just and adequate compensation to the acquired land. If such an evidence was adduced, burden shifts on the State to disprove it. It is furher settled law that the sale transactions filed either in the narration of award or documents, without examination of either the vendee or by the vendor is not evidence." Again in the case of Special Deputy Collector and another etc. v. Kurra Samhasiva Rao and others, AIR 1997 SC 2625 the same view has been reiterated. Second submission is in relation to the land situated in Khasra No. 39 which comprises of the pond. Argument of the learned counsel is that the compensation as determined in respect of this land at the rate of 46 p. per square ft. is inadequate. The learned counsel for the Housing Board submitted that so far as the question of inadequacy of compensation is concerned, the burden rested on the claimant which he has not satisfactorily discharged. Argument of the learned counsel is that the compensation as determined in respect of this land at the rate of 46 p. per square ft. is inadequate. The learned counsel for the Housing Board submitted that so far as the question of inadequacy of compensation is concerned, the burden rested on the claimant which he has not satisfactorily discharged. He further submitted that so far as the question of reasonableness or the inadequacy of the compensation in comparison to market value is concerned, it is always a question of valuation and the said question has already been determined by the Reference Court on the basis of evidence adduced before it. On a close scrutiny of the evidence adduced by the claimant, we find that the burden has not been discharged. Except making some general statements there is nothing else in the said evidence. There is no evidence that the pond was filled up by the claimants. In view of this, the award passed by the reference Court is just and does not warrant any interference. The appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs.