JUDGMENT : M. Papanna, J. - Judgment of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Deogarh in L. A. Misc. Case No. 47/2000 is called in question in this appeal. 2. Facts of the case leading to present appeal are like this :. Government of Orissa acquired land of the respondents measuring Ac. 4.93 decimals in Mouza Chhachunia for the purpose of Rengali Dam Project. Government awarded Rs. 32,466.76 paise towards compensation. The petitioners, who are respondents herein, received the said compensation with protest. Thereafter they claimed higher compensation for which they made representation to the Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Collector who in turn forwarded the same to the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Deogarh. The petitioners pleaded ' that they were growing Paddy and Mung from the said land. The land in question is backed by irrigation facility. Their further plea is that the compensation awarded by the appellant is quite inadequate. They claimed Rs. 35,000/- per acre towards compensation for acquisition of their land. 3. State represented by the Collector, Sambafpur filed written statement resisting rate of compensation claimed by the petitioners. 4. One Bishnu Kisan was examined as P.W. 1 on behalf of the petitioners. A co-villager Labanidhar Sahu was also examined as P.W. 2 on their behalf. On the other hand, no witness was examined on behalf of the State. 5. Learned Civil Judge on consideration of the evidence on record, determined compensation at Rs. 98,000/- for acquisition of land of the petitioners. In addition to that he has determined Rs. 53,000/- towards compensation for acquisition of trees and Rs. 60,000/- for forceful displacement and rehabilitation. 6. Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate assailed impugned judgment on several grounds. According to him the quantum of compensation determined by the learned Civil Judge is exorbitantly high. Similarly his contention that the amount of compensation fixed for acquisition of trees is also on higher side and is arbitrary. On the other hand, impugned judgment is supported by learned Counsel for the respondents. 7. Judgment impugned in this appeal along with evidence on record is gone through. Evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 regarding yield of Paddy and Mung from the land in question has not been controverted by the State. That apart, land in question is Class-I land and is backed by irrigation facilities. 7. Judgment impugned in this appeal along with evidence on record is gone through. Evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 regarding yield of Paddy and Mung from the land in question has not been controverted by the State. That apart, land in question is Class-I land and is backed by irrigation facilities. In view of evidence adduced on behalf of the petitioners and in the absence of rebuttal evidence from the side of the State, learned Civil Judge fixed compensation of Rs. 20,000/- per acre of land, As such, I am not in agreement with the contentions raised by learned Addl. Government Advocate when he contends that the compensation fixed by the learned Civil Judge is on higher side. 8. It is also contended on behalf of the State that the compensation fixed by the learned Civil Judge for acquisition of trees is exorbitantly high. Acquisition of land along with trees thereon by the State for the purpose of Rengali Dam Project is an admitted fact. Materials on record go to indicate that except Sal tree other trees acquired are fruits bearing trees. No evidence challenging evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 was adduced by the Government. Value of the trees of the petitioners (respondents) acquired by the State had gone high in recent times. There are more valuable trees and also they are profitable too. Therefore, taking into account of the above aspects, learned Civil Judge fixed the rate per Mohua tree at Rs. 4000/- per Sal tree at Rs. 4000/- and Palm tree at Rs. 3000/-. In the facts and circumstances of the case as discussed above, I am not inclined to interfere with the findings of the learned Civil Judge regarding determination of compensation for acquisition of trees, The petitioners (respondents) are entitled to get Rs. 24,000/- for loss of Mohua trees, Rs. 8000/-for loss of Sal trees and Rs. 21,000/- for loss of Palm trees, altogether coming to Rs. 53,000/-. 9. In my considered view, judgment impugned in this appeal does not suffer from any infirmity for which I am not inclined to interfere with the same. 10. In the result, appeal being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed. No costs. It is further directed that the amount of compensation in terms of the impugned judgment shall be paid to the respondents within two months from today. Final Result : Dismissed