ORDER 05.04.2007 — It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that filing of A.L. is not necessary. Therefore, filing of A.L. is waived. It is further submitted by learned counsel for both parties that the appeal is otherwise ready for hearing and the same may be taken up for final disposal. Accordingly, the appeal is taken up for final disposal. Heard. This is an appeal by the State against the award passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Angul in L.A. Misc. Case No.62 of 1997 answering a reference u/s.18 of the L.A. Act. Ac.1.06 decimals of Sarada- I and Taila-II categories of lands appertaining to Khata No.25 in Thelkonali belonging to claimant-respondents with some standing trees were acquired by the appellant for the purpose of Talcher-Sambalpur Rail Link Project. After due enquiry, Land Acquisition Officer fixed the market value of Sarad-I land at Rs.12,500/-, Sarad-II land at Rs.11,000/- and Taila-I land at Rs.8,000/- per acre and awarded Rs.565/- towards the acquired trees along with solatium and interest. Not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation the respondents demanded for reference of the matter to the Civil Court u/s. 18 of the L.A. Act and accordingly, the matter came up in the above noted L.A. Case before the learned Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Angul. To substantiate their claim of higher compensation, the respondent-claimants examined one of them as the sole witness and produced water tax receipts marked as Exts.1 & 2 and certified copy of judgment in L.A. Misc. Case No.178 of 1992 as Ext.3. The appellant-opp.party neither examined any witness nor produced any evidence, oral or documentary. After considering the evidence available on record, learned referral Court awarded Rs.31.020/- for the acquired land and Rs.5,000/- consolidated for the ac¬quired trees along with solatium @ 30%, additional compensation @ 12% and interest @ 9% for one year from the date of delivery of possession and 15% per annum thereafter till realization. Being unhappy with the said award, the appellant has filed the present appeal. Mr. Sangram Das, learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the quantum of award determined by the referral Court is not based on evidence. Mr. Prusty, learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand thoroughly supports the impugned award. Being unhappy with the said award, the appellant has filed the present appeal. Mr. Sangram Das, learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the quantum of award determined by the referral Court is not based on evidence. Mr. Prusty, learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand thoroughly supports the impugned award. During the course of hearing, the oral and documentary evidence available on record were re-perused and it was found that the quantum of compensation awarded for the land is in tune with the evidence on record and is at par with the quantum of compensation awarded for similar neighbouring lands. After analyz¬ing the evidence, learned counsel for the parties also agree that quantum of compensation for the land is justified. However, learned Addl.Standing Counsel strongly submits that the market value of the trees assessed by the referral Court is purely based on surmise and conjecture. According to P.W.1, two Mahual trees, two sal trees, two asan trees and two kusuma trees were acquired along with the land. Considering the utility value of these trees, learned referral Court awarded different amount for differ¬ent variety of trees by using rational guess work, which is permissible under Law. However, the amount awarded appears to be slightly on higher side. By using rational guess work with the help of learned counsel for the parties, it is felt that a con¬solidated amount of Rs.4,000/- for the acquired trees would be just and proper. Therefore, the amount awarded is modified to the extent that the claimant respondents would be entitled to a compensation of Rs.4,000/- for the acquired trees. The other award granted by the referral Court will remain intact. Needless to say that respondents also be entitled to statutory benefits as provided under the amended L.A. Act. The appeal is partly allowed. Appeal partly allowed.