JUDGMENT B. P. DAS, J. — This appeal directed against an award passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Deogarh in L.A. Case No.102 of 1998 in a proceeding under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short, ‘the Act’). 2. Pursuant to the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act published in the Orissa Gazette on 19.6.1982, the State Government compulsorily acquired Ac. 9.63 decimals of land under Khata No.10 in village Baliroi under Barkot P.S., district Deo¬garh for the purpose of construction of Rengali Dam Project. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed the market value of Jal Aul land at Rs. 4,500/, Jala Dayam Land at Rs. 3,800/-, Jalasayam Land at Rs. 3,300/-, Goda Aul land at Rs. 2,500/-, Goda Soyam land at Rs. 2000/- and Gharabari land at Rs. 4,500/ per acre. So far a the land of the petitioners-respondents is concerned, it was found to be Jal Aul land of Ac. 4.08 decimals, Jala Dayam land Ac1.11 decimals, Jalasayam land Ac0.93 decimals, Goda Aul land Ac0.73 decimals and Goda Soyam land Ac1.80 decimals. It was claimed by the land oustees that the valuation of different categories of acquired land would have been as follows, i.e., for Class-I land Rs. 40,000/-, Class -II land Rs. 35,000/- and Class-III land Rs. 30,000/- per acre. The Civil Court while deciding the reference under Section 18 of the Act, came to a finding the respondents are entitled to Rs. 1,55,329.92 for the acquired lands measuring an area of Ac.9.09 decimals. The Civil Court arrived at the aforesaid finding basing upon the yield derived from the said land i.e., 8 quintals of paddy per acre, and thereafter applied 16 multiplier. This order of the Civil Court is challenged by the appellant on the ground that the basis on which the compensation was determined is wrong and the compensation is excessive. 3. On perusal of the award passed by the Civil Court, it is noticed that while the respondents examined two witnesses in support of their claim, the appellant preferred not to adduce any oral evidence or produce any document to impeach the evidence adduced on behalf of the respondents and the claim of the land-oustees that the land in question was entirely of Class-I variety having irrigation facilities and they were getting 50 quintals of paddy per acre and were collecting 5000 bungles of straw from the said land. Even though there was no oral or documentary evidence adduced on behalf of the State, the Civil Court disbelieved the said claim and ultimately fixed the rate of the paddy per quintal at Rs. 200/- and assessed the net yield from the land at 8 quin¬tals of paddy per acre. 4. It is true, in order to assess the quality and the rate of paddy, the Civil Court has adopted some amount of guess work, but the same in the facts and circumstances of the case is not unreasonable. That apart, a judgment rendered by this Court on 12.3.98 in First Appeal No.55 of 1996 (State of Orissa v. Nisakar Pradhan) is brought to my notice. In the aforesaid appeal, even the valuation of inferior land acquired for the self-same project was fixed by this Court at Rs. 20,000/- per acre. 5. For the reasons stated above, I am of the considered opinion that the Civil Court has not done any irregularity by applying 16 multiplier in determining the aforesaid compensation for the acquired land. In view of this, I am not inclined to interfere with the award passed by the Civil Court. Accordingly, the First Appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.