JUDGMENT : Pradip Mohanty, J. - The first appeal arises out of the order dated 22.4.94 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Dharamgarh in M.J.C. No. 20 of 1994. 2. The case of the Appellant, in brief, is that the Government of Orissa published notification u/s 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act in the Orissa Gazette at page 2 (Part-II) dated 29.11.1994 in order to acquire Ac 0.77 decimals of land appertaining to plot Nos. 427 and 428 under Khata No. 65/68 and Ac. 01.66 decimals of land appertaining to plot No. 370 under Khata No. 65/12 situated at village Badakutra in the district of Kalahandi for the purpose of construction of the Upper Indrabati Multi-purpose Project. The aforesaid lands belong to the Respondent-claimant. The Respondent's case is that the State Government has not properly conducted the enquiry to determine the value of the acquired lands. His claim is that the market value of the lands, at the time of acquirement; was at the rate of Rs. 20,000/- per acre with other admissible benefits. The Land Acquisition Collector did not assess properly the rate of lands at the time of acquisition. Therefore, the Land Acquisition Collector referred the matter to the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Dharamgarh u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. 3. The learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Dharamgarh, after consideration of the evidence, both oral and documentary, by order dated 22.4.94 held that the claimant is entitled to get higher compensation at the rate of Rs. 14,000/- per acre plus other admissible benefits according to law. He also further directed to give 9. per cent interest. 4. The contention of Mr. Rout, learned Additional Standing Counsel is that the Court below has failed to appreciate the scope and ambit of Section 23 and 24 of the Land Acquisition Act for determination of the value of the lands in question. His further contention is that the learned Civil Judge has erroneously relied upon Ext. 1 the document produced and the oral evidence adduced by the Respondent. The contention of Mr. Khuntia, learned Counsel appearing for-the Respondent, is that the Court below has rightly passed the order after considering the evidence of both the parties relating to the potential value of the acquired lands and determined the valuation of the lands. Therefore, there is no illegality committed by the Court below for awarding the compensation amount. 5. The contention of Mr. Khuntia, learned Counsel appearing for-the Respondent, is that the Court below has rightly passed the order after considering the evidence of both the parties relating to the potential value of the acquired lands and determined the valuation of the lands. Therefore, there is no illegality committed by the Court below for awarding the compensation amount. 5. The issue involved in the appeal relates to the higher compensation awarded in respect of the acquired lands for the purpose of Upper Indrabati Multipurpose Project. The Land Acquisition Collector has awarded Rs. 23,182/- in total including alt benefits. The Respondent-claimant has received the amount under protest. Therefore, the reference u/s 18 of the Act was made to the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Dharamgarh-cum-Land Acquisition Tribunal and the same was disposed of by awarding higher compensation. 6. I have perused the records and the documents exhibited before the learned Trial Judge. The claimant-Respondent in order to prove his case has examined as many as two witnesses and produced one document e.g. Ext. 1. the registered sale deed and the Land Acquisition Collector has examined one witness and produced two documents i.e. Exts. A and 8 which are statistics obtained from the Sub-Register office, Jaipatna. 7. In the present case, there is no allegation by the Appellant Land Acquisition Collector that Ext. 1 is not a genuine document. In course of hearing, Mr. Khuntia drew the attention of the Court to a judgment of this Court in F.A. No. 338 of 1994, Land Acquisition Collector v. Rabindranath Mishra, (disposed of on 6,12.2001). The 1 and 6 covered under aforesaid judgment were also acquired for the Upper Indrabati Multi-purpose Project. It is also submitted that the said lands are also situated in the vicinity where the lands of the Respondent-claimant cover under the present notification. In the case of Rabindranath (supra) this Court also relied upon the decision in F.A. No. 13 of 1992, State of Orissa v. Gangadhar Panda and Anr. The lands covered under the said judgment were also acquired for the same project and the lands were within the vicinity of the suit land. In the aforesaid judgment the valuation was assessed at the rate of Rs. 25,000/- per acre. In the instant case, the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) has assessed the valuation of the lands in question at the rate of Rs. 14,000/- per acre. In the aforesaid judgment the valuation was assessed at the rate of Rs. 25,000/- per acre. In the instant case, the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) has assessed the valuation of the lands in question at the rate of Rs. 14,000/- per acre. Though the Land Acquisition Collector has exhibited two documents before the Tribunal, but the same has not been proved. 8. In view of the discussions made above, this Court does not want to interfere with the judgment and order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Dharamgarh, in M.J.C. No. 20 of 1994. Therefore, the same is hereby affirmed and the first appeal is dismissed. No costs. Final Result : Dismissed