B. PADMARAJ, J. ( 1 ) HEARD the learned Government Advocate for the appellant/land acquisition Officer both on I. A. No. 1 as well as on the question of admission of this miscellaneous second appeal filed by the appellant/land acquisition Officer. ( 2 ) ACCEPTING the explanation offered on behalf of the appellant/land acquisition Officer with regard to the delay in refiling the appeal, the same is condoned as in my view, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the delay in refiling the appeal has been reasonably and satisfactorily explained by the appellant/land Acquisition Officer. Hence, i. A. No. 1 is allowed. ( 3 ) NOW with regard to the merits of the case, the learned Government advocate for the appellant/land Acquisition Officer has contended that the assessment of compensation by the first Appellate Court at Rs. 30,000/- per acre for the acquired land is highly excessive and exorbitant. He therefore contended that the compensation amount awarded by the first Appellate Court warrants interference by this Court in the second appeal. ( 4 ) IN the instant case, the Reference Court on the basis of the evidence available on record, classified the acquired land as Bagayat land of inferior quality and taken the sugarcane crop as the main crop for the assessment of the compensation. Apart from the oral evidence of the claimant, the documentary evidence in the form of record of rights as per ex. P. 2 disclosed that the land in question was a Bagayat land wherein sugarcane crop was being raised by irrigating the land from Hiranyakeshi river. Apart from this, even in the award statement Ex. P. 2, it was clearly mentioned that the acquired land is a Bagayat land. Under the circumstances, therefore, the Reference Court was justified in classifying the acquired land as Bagayat land of inferior quality wherein the sugarcane crop was grown as the main crop. Then on the basis of the yield notification issued by the Tahsildar as per Ex. P. 3, the Reference court took the average yield of sugarcane in respect of the said class of land at 20 tons per acre. Having so taken the yield, it adopted the price of sugarcane at Rs. 380/- per quintal on the basis of the price list issued by the Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee, Sankeshwar. P. 3, the Reference court took the average yield of sugarcane in respect of the said class of land at 20 tons per acre. Having so taken the yield, it adopted the price of sugarcane at Rs. 380/- per quintal on the basis of the price list issued by the Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee, Sankeshwar. Insofar as these two documents are concerned, they being issued by the Competent authorities, their genuineness cannot be doubted or disputed. Hence, the yield adopted and the price fixed by the Reference Court cannot be found fault with. On the basis of which the Reference Court arrived at the gross income from the acquired land at Rs. 7,600/- per acre and deducting 50% towards the cost of cultivation and adopted the multiplier of 10, it determined the market value of the acquired land at rs. 38,000/- per acre. On appeal, the first Appellate Court found that since the compensation claimed by the respondent/claimant himself is ks. 30,000/- per acre, the Reference Court could not have awarded compensation at Rs. 38,000/- per acre and accordingly it reduced the compensation amount payable to the respondent/claimant for the acquired land at Rs. 30,000/- per acre. The market value so arrived at by the courts below cannot be said to be either excessive or unreasonable so as to call for interference by this Court in the second appeal. The approach of both the Courts below in the matter of determination of the market value of the acquired land is quite fair and reasonable. That apart, the ouantum of compensation determined by the Courts below on the basis the materials placed on record is essentially a finding of fact and the ame cannot be interfered with, in the second appeal filed by the appellant/land Acquisition Officer under Section 54 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act. In a second appeal, under Section 54 (2) of the Land Acquisition act, the questions which may not be raised in an appeal, under Section 100 of the CPC cannot be raised. The second appeal can be entertained by this Court within the limits prescribed by Section 100 of the CPC and it is not open to the parties to demand reappraisal of the evidence by this Court on the ground that the Courts below have erred in their view of the evidence in the matter of fixing the compensation for the acquired land. ( 5 ) THEREFORE, having given my anxious consideration to the entire matter in issue, I am of the clear view that no substantial question of law will arise for consideration in this miscellaneous second appeal filed by the appellant/land Acquisition Officer. Hence, I find no good ground to entertain this miscellaneous second appeal filed by the appellant/land Acquisition officer and it is accordingly dismissed. --- *** --- .