JUDGMENT B. PANIGRAHI, J. — This First Appeal has assailed the proprie¬ty of the award passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Divi¬sion), Kendrapara, in L. A. Case No. 112 of 1986 in a reference under Sec. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short, the “Act”). 2. Land appertaining to Khata No. 88, Plot No. 261 measur¬ing Ac. 0. 12 decimals and Khata No. 90, Plot No. 262 measuring Ac. 0. 68 decimals, in total Ac. 0. 80 decimals in mouza Sriban¬tapur in Kendrapara P.S. belonging to the respondent was acquired by the State Government for construction of Drainage Channel from Dhuma¬tapat to Gobari river and possession was taken on 29.11.1978. The Land Acquisition Collector awarded compensation of Rs. 1536.40 paise for the acquired land. The claimant being dissatisfied filed objection on 18.4.1979 before the Collector claiming higher compensation at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per acre although he received the compensation amount under protest on 24.3.1979. The Collector referred the matter under Sec. 18 of the Act on 4.6.1986 for determination of just compensation by the Civil Court. In the reference which was registered as L.A.Misc. Case No. 112 of 1986 the claimant examined three witnesses including himself and relied upon certified copies of two sale deeds. The learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kendrapra, considering the evidence on record assessed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 12,500/- per acre and accordingly fixed the compensation at Rs. 10,000/- for the acquired land. Besides, the learned Civil Judge granted Solatium at the rate of 30% and interest at the rate of 15% for 15 years. Being aggrieved by the award passed by the Civil Judge, the State has preferred this appeal. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the State has submitted that the Court below did not consider the matter in proper per¬spective and was guided by the sale deed (Ext.1) which was a transaction much after the acquisition and was designedly execut¬ed showing inflated amount so that the higher compensation can be claimed. It is also submitted that the land in question cannot be used for any purpose other than agricultural purpose and could not have fetched more than Rs. 5,000/- per acre. The Land Acqui¬sition Collector while determining the compensation had taken into account the sale statistics which showed that the land per acre was being sold at Rs. 1,500/-. It is also submitted that the land in question cannot be used for any purpose other than agricultural purpose and could not have fetched more than Rs. 5,000/- per acre. The Land Acqui¬sition Collector while determining the compensation had taken into account the sale statistics which showed that the land per acre was being sold at Rs. 1,500/-. However, I find from the records that the appellant has led no evidence before the referal Court. Therefore, I do not find any justification in the conten¬tion of the learned counsel for the appellant. 4. Coming to the question of determination of market value of the land by the referal Court, I find that the claimant in his objection has unequivocally stated that land in the village of acquisition was being sold at Rs. 10,000/- per acre. If that be so, how could he claim more compensation at the time of leading evidence without amending his claim. The referal Court relying upon Ext. 1, which is a sale transaction subsequent to the acqui¬sition has fixed Rs. 12,500/- as valuation per acre of land. In his evidence, the claimant (P.W.1) has claimed that the land was yielding three crops a year. In the above background, I feel it reasonable to fix the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 10,000/- per acre and as such the claimant is entitled to Rs. 8,000/- instead of Rs. 10,000/- as determined by the Court below. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant has objected to the order of the Court below granting Solatium @ 30% and interest at the rate of 15% from the date of publication of the notifica¬tion of acquisition for a period of 15 years. In view of Secs. 23(2) and 28 of the Act, as amended by Act 68 of 1984, the refer¬al Court was justified in granting solatium and interest. In view of the decision of this Court reported in 81 (1996) CLT. 408 (Land Acquisition Officer, Puri v. Rama Sundari Dei), I do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the referal Court. 6. In the result, the award passed by the Court below is modified to the extent indicated. The First Appeal is allowed in part. There will be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed in part.