JUDGMENT : B. Panigrahi, J. - This is an appeal u/s 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, challenging the award passed in Land Acquisition Misc. Case No. 45 of 1994 by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division). Kamakshayanagar wherein the referral Court has determined the compensation payable to the Respondent at the rate of Rs. 32.000/- per acre towards the cost of acquired land and at the rate of Rs. 125/- for each Mahul tree having a girth between V to 2' and 9 Rs. 1000/- for each the same tree having a girth of 6 feet; at the rate of Rs. 50/- for each date palm tree and 9 Rs. 15/- for each Palm tree. Besides the above, the referral Court has granted statutory solatium at the rate of 30% on the enhanced compensation and interest 99% per annum on the excess amount of compensation from the date of acquisition of the land. 2. The Respondent was the recorded owner of the land measuring Ac. 0.16 decimals appertaining to Plot Nos. 7750 and 7764 under Khata No. 192 of village Muktapasi. The land was recorded as Sarad-III kisam and there were 10 numbers of Mahul trees, 4 numbers of Palm trees and 2 numbers of Date palm trees on the aforesaid land. The land was acquired pursuant to a Notification u/s 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act for Rengali Irrigation Project and compensation was paid to the Petitioner. The value for the land was fixed at Rs. 23,000/- per acre whereas ail the trees were valued at Rs. 352/-. Therefore, the Respondent being dissatisfied with, the compensation fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer filed an objection before him and made a prayer to refer the matter to the Civil Court. Accordingly the Land Acquisition Officer referred the matter to the Civil Court u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. Neither parties adduced any documentary evidence before the Court below. The claimant was examined before the referral Court and claimed that by the time of acquisition the agricultural lands were being sold at the rate of Rs. 2,500/- to Rs. 3,000/- per gunth in his village, but no sale deed was filed in support of his claim. However, for a land situated in the same vicinity the referral Court had already been fixed at Rs. 32,000/- per acre for Sarad-III Kisam land in Land Acquisition Misc. 2,500/- to Rs. 3,000/- per gunth in his village, but no sale deed was filed in support of his claim. However, for a land situated in the same vicinity the referral Court had already been fixed at Rs. 32,000/- per acre for Sarad-III Kisam land in Land Acquisition Misc. Case No. 60 of 1994. Therefore the referral Court adopted the same valuation for the land acquired from the Respondent. The acquired land in L.A. Misc. Case No. 60/94 and the (and in the present case are situated in the same village Muktapasi. There is no evidence to suggest that the Respondent's land was interior to the land which was acquired in L.A. Misc. Case No. 60 of 1994. Even though the claimant examined himself as a witness, out there was no evidence adduced on behalf of the Land Acquisition Officer, therefore, the learned referral Court was inclined to accept the statement of the owner and fixed compensation at the rate of Rs. 32.000/- per. acre for Sarad-III Kisam land. In so tar as the valuation of the trees was concerned. the learned referral Court fixed at the rate of Rs. 125/- for each Mahul tree having a given between 1' to 2' and at the rate of Rs. 1000/- for the same tree having a girth of 6 feet The Land Acquisition Officer had however fixed Rs. 23,000/- per acre for Sarad-III Kisam land. Such valuation was assessed on the basis of some sale deeds of the year 1988-89. 3. While determining the compensation u/s 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, the referral Court should bear in mind the fair and reasonable adequate market value of the land which was proposed to be acquired. The market value is always a question of fact depending upon the evidence adduced and probabilities arose in each case. The guiding star or the acid test would be whether a hypothetical willing vendors would offer the lands and a willing purchaser in normal human conduct would be willing willing to buy as a prudent man in the locality in which the acquired lands arc situated as on the date of notification u/s 4(1) of the Act. While determining the market value, the Land Acquisition Officer had not taken into account the valuation which was prevalent on the date of notification u/s 4(1) of the Act. While determining the market value, the Land Acquisition Officer had not taken into account the valuation which was prevalent on the date of notification u/s 4(1) of the Act. but was guided by the valuation which was prevalent 2 to 3 years before such notification. The referral Court did not agree with the valuation fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer. Since there has been no evidence to counter the claim, it is not possible to interfere with the order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division). The value of Sarad-III Kisam land has been fixed at Rs. 32.000/- per acre which does not appear to be excess. In F.A. Nos. 27 and 40 1995 this Court has also accepted the said valuation fixed by the referral Court. Accordingly. I do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed, but the circumstance without cost. Final Result : Dismissed