JUDGMENT : M. Papanna, J. - Judgment of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Deogarh in L. A. Case No. 22/99 is under challenge in this appeal. 2. Facts of the case leading to present appeal are like this : For the purpose of Rengali Dam Project, Government of Orissa has acquired Ac. 7.53 1/2, decimals of land covered by Khatas 1, 1/1, 10, 12 and 14 in Mouza Gothamada and awarded Rs. 70,164.70 towards compensation for such acquisition along with trees. Respondents received the said compensation with protest. They, being aggrieved by the aforesaid award, filed a petition before the Land Acquisition Officer cum-Collector, Deogarh who in turn made a reference u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short "the Act") to the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) for determination of proper compensation. 3. Respondents have pleaded that they were growing paddy, mung and Rasl over the land in question. They were getting 20 pudugs of paddy, 4 Qtls of Mung and 3 Qtls of Rasi per acre from the said land. The said land was backed by irrigation facilities. In view of that the amount of compensation paid to them for acquisition of land by the Government is quite inadequate. They demanded compensation of Rs. 50,000/- per acre. Their claim per mango tree is Rs. 5000/-, per Mohua tree is Rs. 5000/-, per Sajana Badhiala and other trees Rs. 1000/-. That apart, they have claimed Rs. 2000/-. towards resettlements benefits; 4. The State Government represented by the Collector, Sambalpur filed written statement of defence resisting claim of the petitioners (respondents). 5. One Dileswar Pradhan examined as P.W. 1 on behalf of all the petitioners and a co-villager one Jibardhan Pradhan was examined as P.W. 2 on behalf of the petitioners. None for and on behalf of the State was examined in support of their stand. 6. On consideration of evidence on record, learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) determined Rs. 1,50,720.48 paise for acquisition of land (Ac. 7.53 1/2 dec.). That apart, he fixed Rs. 60,000/- for trees and Rs. 15,000/- each for change of their residence and business to a new place along with other statutory benefits. 7. It is contended on behalf of the State that the quantum of compensation determined by the learned Civil Judge is on higher side and is arbitrary. 7.53 1/2 dec.). That apart, he fixed Rs. 60,000/- for trees and Rs. 15,000/- each for change of their residence and business to a new place along with other statutory benefits. 7. It is contended on behalf of the State that the quantum of compensation determined by the learned Civil Judge is on higher side and is arbitrary. On the other hand, the impugned judgment is supported by learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 8. The impugned judgment along with evidence on record is perused. Admittedly, no evidence, either oral and documentary, has been adduced for and on behalf of the state. However, basing on the evidence adduced on behalf of the petitioners (respondents), learned Civil Judge formed an opinion that the petitioners could not maintain any account by them showing total production of yield and expenditure. However, in his opinion, annual yield of paddy from the land in question was 80 Qtls. and Mung was 50 Qtls. per acre. He calculated the rate or paddy per Qtl. at Rs. 350/- and Mung per Qtl. at Rs. 1200/-. On the basis of settled principles, he held the petitioners to be entitled to compensation for loss of their lands, that is, Rs. 3388.50 + Rs. 6031.53 = Rs. 9420.03 multiplied by sixteen times = Rs. 1,50,720.48 paises. This calculation he did for the land acquired for purpose of Rengali Dam Project. For standing trees on the land acquired he made separate calculation depending on importance and size of trees. For mohua trees he fixed the rate per tree at Rs. 1500/- which he multiplied by 33 = Rs. 49,500/-, per mango, he has also fixed Rs. 1500/- as compensation which he multiplied by three which comes to Rs. 45,000/-. For Kendu trees he fixed Rs. 1000/- per tree multiplied by three which comes to Rs. 3000/-. That apart, for Asan tree he fixed compensation at Rs. 1000/- multiplied by three which comes to Rs. 3000/-. In total he fixed Rs. 60,000/- towards compensation for trees acquired with land. In Addition to that he has fixed Rs. 15,000/- towards compensation for change of residence and their business to a new place. In the absence of rebuttal evidence on behalf of the State, learned Civil Judge did not consider their plea. 9. 3000/-. In total he fixed Rs. 60,000/- towards compensation for trees acquired with land. In Addition to that he has fixed Rs. 15,000/- towards compensation for change of residence and their business to a new place. In the absence of rebuttal evidence on behalf of the State, learned Civil Judge did not consider their plea. 9. Regard being had to the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and on consideration of evidence available on record, I am convinced that the 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