B. PADMARAJ, J. ( 1 ) HEARD the learned Government Advocate for the appellant-Land Acquisition officer and carefully perused the case records including the judgments and awards made by both the Courts below. ( 2 ) THE appellant-L. A. O. has preferred this miscellaneous second appeal against the judgment and award dated 12-10-2001 of the first Appellate court, whereby, it has confirmed the judgment and award made by the Reference Court and dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant- l. A. O. ( 3 ) THE appellant herein had acquired an extent of 2 acres of land in sy. No. 325 situated at Kesare Village, Mysore Taluk, for Varuna Canal project and fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 14,100/- per acre. The respondent-claimant, not being satisfied with the award made by the L. A. O. , sought for reference and on reference, the Reference court on consideration of the entire materials placed on record, fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 54,856/- per acre in respect of the dry land and Rs. 68,562/- per acre in respect of the wetland. On appeal, the same has been confirmed by the Appellate Court. Hence, this miscellaneous second appeal. ( 4 ) LEARNED Government Advocate for the appellant-L. A. O. has vehemently contended that the Courts below without appreciating the fact that there is no similarity, proximity or comparability of the acquired land and the lands involved in Ex. P. 1, have' erred in determining the market value of the land in question on the basis of Ex. P. 1, a certified copy of the judgment passed in other cases. He, therefore, contended that the impugned judgment and award made by the lower Appellate court warrants interference by this Court in the second appeal. ( 5 ) IN the instant case, the Courts below have relied upon Ex. P. 1, which was an award passed by the Reference Court in respect of certain dry lands of the same village, namely, Kesare Village, on the ground that the land in question is similar in nature to the lands involved in Ex. P. 1 and, hence, entitled for the same compensation. The relevant discussion made in this regard by the first Appellate Court is found in paragraphs 7 and 8 of the impugned judgment, which reads as under. 7. P. 1 and, hence, entitled for the same compensation. The relevant discussion made in this regard by the first Appellate Court is found in paragraphs 7 and 8 of the impugned judgment, which reads as under. 7. Impugned judgment reveals that the Civil Judge has relied on Ex. P. 1 to determine the market value of the lands of shivanna and Thimmaiah. Ex. P. 1 is the certified copy of the judgment in L. A. C. Nos. 1030, 1150 of 1992 and 1169 of 1992. It further reveals that in the reference made under Section 18 in respect of the lands bearing S. Nos. 194, 383/4, 479/2 of Kesare village, the learned Civil Judge determined the market value at rs. 55,125/- per acre in respect of dry land. Now, the question is, whether the lands of the respondents were similar to the lands involved in Ex. P. 1. In the impugned judgment, the learned Civil judge has held that the lands were similar. For the following reasons, I agree with the finding recorded by the Civil Judge. Firstly, lands of the respondents and the lands of Javaregowda, ningaiah and T. Nagaraju who were the claimants in L. A. C. Nos. 1030, 1151, 1169 of 1992'were the lands of Kesare Village. Secondly, P. W. 1 has deposed in his evidence that two paddy crops were raised by him, Thimmaiah and the claimants in Ex. P. 1. Thirdly, all the lands in question had water source from municipality. Lastly, the fact that all the lands are of Kesare Village and that similar crops were raised and that the source of water for all the lands was one and the same, show that the lands were similar in all respects. It may also be noted that all the lands were acquired under the same notification. Soil of the lands of the respondent was not subjected to chemical test is no ground to show that their lands were not similar to the lands covered under ex. P. 1. In fact, no answer has been elicited in the cross-examination of P. W. 1 to show that the lands of the respondents were inferior to the lands covered under Ex. P. T. 8. There is no evidence to show that the market value determined by the Civil Judge in Ex. P. 1 has been modified or set aside by the competent Court. P. T. 8. There is no evidence to show that the market value determined by the Civil Judge in Ex. P. 1 has been modified or set aside by the competent Court. Under the circumstances, I do not find any reason to hold that the lands of the respondents were not similar to the lands covered under Ex. P. 1". From the above observations made by, the first Appellate Court, it is quite clear that the lands involved in Ex. P. 1 were found to be similar in all respects to the land in question and they were situated in the very same village. That being so, the claimant was entitled to same compensation as has been awarded to the other lands of the same village, which are similar in nature. A judgment of a Court awarding compensation for similar land can be relied upon for determining the market value of the land in question. There could be no serious dispute that the judgment of courts in the land acquisition cases can be relied upon as a good piece evidence, especially when the land in question is similar to the land involved in the judgment of the Court, relied upon by the claimant. In the instant case, as I have already stated, both the Courts below found that the land in question is similar to the lands involved in Ex. P. 1 and that further they were situated in the very same village. It is to be seen, therefore, that the judgment Ex. P. 1 relied upon by the claimant could form the basis for fixing the market value of the acquired land, due regard being had to all the attending circumstances. ( 6 ) IN view of this and under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Courts below were right in relying upon Ex. P. 1 and taking the same as a guide for arriving at the market value of the acquired land. The finding thus recorded by the Courts below is essentially a finding of fact considering all the attending circumstances in the case. The said finding being in the arena of appreciation of evidence on the factual matrix, I am not inclined to interfere with the same. The finding thus recorded by the Courts below is essentially a finding of fact considering all the attending circumstances in the case. The said finding being in the arena of appreciation of evidence on the factual matrix, I am not inclined to interfere with the same. ( 7 ) I have perused the impugned judgment of the first Appellate Court confirming the judgment and award of the Reference Court, and I find that on discussion of the evidence on record and for certain cogent reasons given in the impugned judgment, the Court below has confirmed the compensation awarded by the Trial Court at Rs. 68,562/- per acre. It cannot be said that the compensation awarded is so unreasonable or excessive as to call for interference by this Court in the second appeal. It has to be stated that in the 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 miscellaneous second appeal can be entertained by this Court within the limitations prescribed by Section 100 of the CPC and it is not open to the appellant-L. A. O. 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 determination to compensation for the acquired land in relation to Ex. P. 1. 1 am therefore of the clear view that unless a substantial question of law arises for consideration, this Court in the second appeal cannot interfere with the decision of the Courts below, in the matter of determination of the market value for the acquired land. I do not find that the impugned judgment of the first Appellate Court under challenge suffers from any serious illegality so as to call for interference by this Court in the second appeal. The approach of the Court below is quite fair and reasonable. Hence, no interference with the decision rendered by the Court below is called for. In my view, no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this miscellaneous second appeal filed by the appellant-L. A. O. Hence, this miscellaneous second appeal filed by the appellant-L. A. O. is liable to be dismissed. Hence, no interference with the decision rendered by the Court below is called for. In my view, no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this miscellaneous second appeal filed by the appellant-L. A. O. Hence, this miscellaneous second appeal filed by the appellant-L. A. O. is liable to be dismissed. ( 8 ) IN the result, therefore, this miscellaneous second appeal filed by the appellant-L. A. O. is hereby dismissed. But, in the circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs. --- *** --- .