JUDGMENT : Pradip Mohanty, J. - This first appeal arises out of the order dated 1.12.1994 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Kamakshayanagar, in Land Acquisition Misc. Case No. 55 of 1993. Though notice has been made sufficient against the sole Respondent-claimant, none appears-when the appeal was heard on merit. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, is that the Respondent-claimant is the recorded tenant of the acquired lands measuring an area of Ac. 0.92 decimals appertaining to plot Nos. 1474, 1487, 1480. 1485. 1489 and 1491 under Khata No. 199 of mouja Chandpur in the district of Dhenkanal. Out of the above plots, hall plot-Nos. 1474 and 1487 measuring an area of Ac. 0.47 decimals is Sarada-II variety, plot No. 1580 measuring an area of Ac. 0.18 decimals is Sarada-III variety and Plot Nos. 1485. 1489 and 1491 measuring an area of Ac. 0.34 decimals is Sarada-I variety, in pursuance of notification dated 2.2.1989 u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act the above lands of the Respondent-claimant were acquired for Rengali Irrigation Project. For the purpose of compensation, the Land Acquisition Collector determined the market value of the lands all the rate of Rs. 14.000/- per acre for Sarada-III variety. Rs. 20,000/- per acre for Sarada-II variety and Rs. 23.000/- per acre for Sarada-I variety. Since 24 numbers of trees of different sizes were standing on the acquired land at the time of acquisition. Rs. 367/- was awarded as compensation towards loss of the trees. Accordingly, a total sum of Rs. 31,703.75 paise was "awarded to the claimant-Respondent including the solatium and interest towards compensation According to the Respondent-claimant, the market value fixed by the Land Acquisition Collector is very low even though the lands of his village are of high demand and are sold at Rs. 5000/- per Gunth. Further the case of the Respondent is that the lands of his village are of high demand due to its location nearer to Talcher and Parajanga which have advantages of schools, colleges, hospitals and industries. The Respondent received the amount with objection. Therefore, the Land Acquisition Collector referred to the matter u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act to the Land Acquisition Tribunal-cu/n-Civil Judge (Sr. Divn. p. Talcher. 3. The learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Kamakshayanagar after considering both oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties, by his order dated 1.12.1994. The Respondent received the amount with objection. Therefore, the Land Acquisition Collector referred to the matter u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act to the Land Acquisition Tribunal-cu/n-Civil Judge (Sr. Divn. p. Talcher. 3. The learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Kamakshayanagar after considering both oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties, by his order dated 1.12.1994. awarded higher compensation to the Respondent fixing Rs. 30,000/- per acre for Sarada-I land. Rs. 25.000/- per acre for Sarada-II land and Rs. 20.000/- per acre for Sarada-III land. He also awarded solatium of 30% at the proportionate rate as per the enhanced value and further directed to give interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the excess amount of compensation from the date on which the lands were taken in possession till the date of payment. 4. The oniy point for determination in this appeal is whether the Respondent is entitled to higher compensation. In order to establish his claim, the Respondent has examined himself as P.W.I and relied upon the certified copy of the order in L.A. Misc. Case No. 27 of 93 and 24 of 1993 of the said Court which were exhibited as Exts. 1 and 2. The Appellant has not examined any witness nor produced any document in support of his case before the Land Acquisition Trmunal. 5. The contention of Mr. Rout, learned Additional Standing Counsel is that, the Court below has failed to appreciate the scope and ambit of Sections 23 and 24 of the Land Acquisition Act for determining the value of the lands in question. His further contention is that the learned Civil Judge erroneously relied on Exts 1 and 2 and the oral evidence. He also contended that the suit lands are not similarly placed to the lands referred to Exts. 1 and 2. In support of his argument, no material has been placed by Mr. Rout. In the instant case, no oral evidence has been adduced nor a document has been produced by the Appellant to determine the correct value of the acquired lands. Nothing has also been elicited from the cross-examination of the claimant-Respondent to discredit his testimony. Therefore, the argument advanced by the learned Additional Standing Counsel has no force. The learned trial Judge after considering the evidence has rightly awarded the higher compensation. The learned trial Judge has also considered other aspects while determining the compensation. Nothing has also been elicited from the cross-examination of the claimant-Respondent to discredit his testimony. Therefore, the argument advanced by the learned Additional Standing Counsel has no force. The learned trial Judge after considering the evidence has rightly awarded the higher compensation. The learned trial Judge has also considered other aspects while determining the compensation. The Appellant has no reply to the finding recorded by the trial Court. The lands were acquired as far as ten years back. At present the market value of the lands is too high. 6. For the reasons stated above, the impugned order of the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Kamakshayanagar is just and proper and the same is affirmed. The first appeal is accordingly dismissed. No cost. Final Result : Dismissed