JUDGMENT : B.P. Das, J. - This is an appeal u/s 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short "the Act") by the Land Acquisition Officer, Puri, challenging the award dated 28.2.1997 passed in L. A. Misc. Case No. 315 of 1994 by which the Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Bhubaneswar granted compensation for the acquired land of the respondent-land oustee at a rate of Rs. 4,00,000/- per acre along with other statutory benefits, such as, 12% additional compensation u/s 23, 30% solatium u/s 23(2) and interest at the rate of 9% per annum for the first year and 15% per annum for the subsequent years, till actual payment is made, as provided u/s 28 of the Act. 2. Consequent upon publication of the notification u/s 4(i) of the Act in the Orissa Gazette on 11.1.1984 the State Government acquired several plots of land indicated therein including plot No. 125 under Khata No. 2 with an area of Ac. 0.501 in Mouza Bharatpur under Bhubaneswar P.S. in Puri district belonging to the present respondent for establishment of a public garden named "Ekamra Kanan". For the aforesaid acquisition, the Land Acquisition Officer, Puri, granted compensation at the rate of Rs. 55,000/-per acre along with the admissible statutory benefits in favour of the respondent-land oustee. The land oustee received the aforesaid compensation with protest and claimed higher compensation at the rate of Rs. 5,00,000/- per acre, which according to him was the prevailing market rate of the acquired land on the date of the notification u/s 4(i) of the Act. The matter was ultimately referred to the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Bhubaneswar u/s 18 of the Act for determination of fair amount of compensation. 3. In order to prove his case, the petitioner, i.e., the present respondent, examined two witnesses including himself as P.W. 1 and produced several documents, which were marked as exhibits including the judgments passed by the said Court in respect of certain cases relating to the lands acquired for the same purpose and in the same vicinity i.e., L. A. Misc. Case Nos. 120/88, 74/88 and 364/94 (Exts. 3, 8 and 9 respectively). On behalf of the State, the concerned Amin in the office of the opp. party was examined as O.P.W. 1 but no document was produced. 4. Case Nos. 120/88, 74/88 and 364/94 (Exts. 3, 8 and 9 respectively). On behalf of the State, the concerned Amin in the office of the opp. party was examined as O.P.W. 1 but no document was produced. 4. The State Government with a view to acquire lands for establishing a public garden named "Ekamra Kanan" in Bhubaneswar issued three notifications u/s 4(i) of the Act dated 11.1.1984 (Ext. 1), 8.5.1984 (Ext. 2) and 24.8.1984 (Ext. 6) under which, several plots of land as indicated therein were acquired in two adjoining Mouzas Nayapalli and Bharatpur including the land of the present petitioner appertaining to plot No. 125 in Mouza Bharatpur. On reference being made at the instance of certain land-oustees covered by the aforesaid notifications of Mouza Nayapalli, the reference Court by the judgments passed in L.A. Misc. Case Nos. 120/88 (Ext, 3), 74/88 (Ext. 8) and 364/94 (Ext. 9) fixed the market value of the land at the rate of Rs. 4,00,000/- per acre. The court below found that the lands involved in the aforesaid three L. A. Misc. Cases (Exts. 3, 8 and 9) appertaining to Mouza Nayapaili were adjacent to and in close vicinity of the present acquired land of the petitioner. The Court relied upon the evidence of the Amin, O.P.W. 1, who stated that plot No. 960 of Mouza Nayapalli belonging to the petitioner-Premalata Sarangi in L. A. Misc. Case No. 364/ 94 adjoined plot No. 125 of the present petitioner in Mouza Bharatpur and the State Government also accepted -the award passed in L. A. Misc. Case No. 364/94 (Ext. 9), wherein the market value was fixed at Rs. 4,00,000/- per acre. Basing upon the aforesaid evidence and accepting the valuation determined in the aforesaid L. A. Misc. Cases (Exts. 3, 8 and 9), the Court below held that the market value of the acquired land would be Rs. 4,00,000/- per acre on the date of publication of the notification u/s 4(i) of the Act dated 11.1.1984 (Ext. 1) and that the petitioner would be entitled to get compensation at the aforesaid rate along with other admissible statutory benefits. 3, 8 and 9), the Court below held that the market value of the acquired land would be Rs. 4,00,000/- per acre on the date of publication of the notification u/s 4(i) of the Act dated 11.1.1984 (Ext. 1) and that the petitioner would be entitled to get compensation at the aforesaid rate along with other admissible statutory benefits. The Land Acquisition Officer has come up with the present appeal challenging the aforesaid judgment on the ground that the Court below has gone wrong in accepting the version of the land-oustee and in relying upon the previous judgments passed by the said Court in L. A. Misc. Case Nos. 120/88, 74/88 and 364/94. 5. During the course of hearing of this appeal the learned counsel for the State produces a xerox copy of the judgment passed in L.A.M.C. No. 268/88 wherein the reference Court granted compensation at the market rate of Rs. 80,000/- per acre for the acquired land appertaining to plot No. 113 under Khata No. 2 in Mouza Bharatpur and contends that the aforesaid market value of Rs. 80,000/- determined in respect of plot No. 113 may be adopted for the present acquired land in plot No. 125 as both the plots not only appertain to one Khata, i.e., Khata No. 2, but also situate in the very same Mouza Bharatpur and were acquired by the very same notification dated 11.1.1984 (Ext. 1) for the very same purpose. I, however, find that though L.A.M.C. No. 268/88 was decided on 10.7.1991, the judgment of that case was never produced by the State before the Court below at the time of hearing of the present case, which was decided on 28.2.1997. For this reason, I am not inclined to take into consideration the said judgment in L.A.M.C. No. 268/88. 6. Ext. 5 is the sketch map of the lands acquired in Mouzas Nayapalli and Bharatpur from which I find that plot No. 960 of L.A.M.C. No. 364/94 is the contiguous plot to the east of the present acquired plot No. 125 and the plot no 957 of L.A.M.C. No. 120/88 and plot Nos. 940 and 948 of L.A.M.C. No. 74/88 are also situated in the close vicinity of the present acquired land. In all the aforesaid cases, i.e. L.A.M.C. Nos. 364/94, 74/88 and 120/88, the judgments of which were marked as Exts. 940 and 948 of L.A.M.C. No. 74/88 are also situated in the close vicinity of the present acquired land. In all the aforesaid cases, i.e. L.A.M.C. Nos. 364/94, 74/88 and 120/88, the judgments of which were marked as Exts. 9, 8 and 3 respectively, the valuation has been fixed at Rs. 4,00,000/- per acre and the aforesaid judgments have not been challenged by the State. That apart, learned counsel for the land-oustee submits that compensation Rs. 4,00,000/- per acre in the aforesaid cases has already been paid to the concerned land-oustees. 7. In the circumstances of the case, I am inclined to hold that there is no illegality or irregularity committed by the Court below in passing the impugned judgment and determining the valuation of the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 4,00,000/- per acre. The impugned judgment, therefore, does not call for any interference by this Court. 8. In view of the above, the appeal stands dismissed, but without any order as to cost. Final Result : Dismissed