JUDGMENT A. K. PARICHHA, J. : This is an appeal by the State against an award passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Dhar¬amgarh in M.J.C. No.16 of 1994. 2. Ac. 2.35 decimals of land situated in village Mukhiguda belonging to the claimant-respondent was acquired for the purpose of right main canal under Upper Indravati Project by virtue of Govt. Declaration No.69121 dated 3.11.1988. Learned Land Acquisi¬tion Collector, Kusumkhunti, Kalahandi after enquiry awarded a compensation of Rs.36,046/- for the acquired land. The claimant received the said amount on protest and insisted for reference of the matter to the Civil Court for adjudication of the real market value of the acquired land. Accordingly, the matter came up before the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Dharamgarh in the above noted L.A. Misc. Case. 3. To justify the claim of higher compensation the claimant examined 3 witnesses and produced certified copy of some sale deeds, which were marked as Exts. A & B, Certified copy of notice in M.J.C. No.14 of 1994, Certified copy of the judgment in M.J.C. No.14 of 1994 and 105/23 of 1988-91, which were marked as Exts. C. D & E respectively and objection petition of O.P.W. 1 dated 13.2.1989 before L.A. Collector, which was marked as Ext.F. The Land Acquisition Collector examined one witness and produced the attested true copy of working sheet, attested true copy of sales statistics and reference letter U/s. 18 of the Land Acqui¬sition Act, which were marked as Exts. 1 to 3 respectively. On consideration of these oral and documentary evidence learned referral Court came to the conclusion that the market value of the acquired land at the relevant point of time was Rs.900/- per decimal. He accordingly, directed payment of compensation at that rate along with the statutory benefits, including additional compensation, interest etc. The said award is under challenge in this appeal. 4. Mr. Sangram Das, learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the market value of the acquired land assessed by the learned referral Court is not in accordance with the evidence on record. According to him, the enhancement in the rate of compensation is exorbitant and not acceptable particularly when the rate was stoutly denied by the appellant. Mr. Sangram Das, learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the market value of the acquired land assessed by the learned referral Court is not in accordance with the evidence on record. According to him, the enhancement in the rate of compensation is exorbitant and not acceptable particularly when the rate was stoutly denied by the appellant. Mr. Millan Kanungo, learned counsel appearing for the respondent on the other hand, submits that the rate of compensa¬tion awarded in the impugned order is not only supported by the evidence on record, but it is also supported by the order of a Division Bench of this Court in F.A. No. 105 of 1996. He produced a copy of the order passed in the said appeal to show that for the similar adjoining land of the same claimant compensation at the rate of Rs.1000/- per decimal has already been paid. 5. Admittedly, Ac.2.35 decimals of land in Khata No. 107/6 of village Mukhiguda belonging to the claimant-respondent was acquired in the year 1987-88. It is claimed by the appellant that BERNA & BAHAL varieties of lands are agricultural land and, therefore, the value of such lands cannot be at par with home¬stead.It was the claim of the claimant-respondent that although the acquired lands were BERNA & BAHAL varieties of land, the same is situated inside the village by the side of the canal and is fit for homestead and he had in fact kept these lands for home¬stead purpose. In this regard, the claimant, P.W.1 and his witness have clarified that the acquired land situates close to the village surrounded by various official establishments and houses. They made it clear that this land is now fit for home¬stead. P.W.1, the Land Acquisition Officer denied that the value of the land acquired will never be Rs.2,500/- per decimal as claimed by the claimant, but he never denied that the acquired land is not fit for homestead. In fact he admitted that he cannot say if this land had been converted to homestead. P.W.1, the Land Acquisition Officer denied that the value of the land acquired will never be Rs.2,500/- per decimal as claimed by the claimant, but he never denied that the acquired land is not fit for homestead. In fact he admitted that he cannot say if this land had been converted to homestead. Since the land is situated close to the village by the side of the canal and the consistent evidence of the witnesses is that after coming of Indravati Project, Mukhiguda has become developed place and houses, commercial establishments, Government establishments have come up by the side of the canal close to the acquire land, it can be safely inferred that the acquired land at the time of acquisition was good enough to be homestead and had adequate potential value. 6. The claimant examined witnesses and pressed Exts. A to D into service in support of their claim that the acquired land was worth Rs.2500/- per decimal at the time of acquisition, but learned referral Court rejected this plea because Exts. A & B revealed sale of lands in 1982 @ Rs.250/- to Rs.300/- per decimal. Learned referral Court, however, taking note of the rate noted in the sale deed and the sales statistics found that in the year 1982 similar lands were sold and acquired at the rate of Rs.300/- proximately per decimal. Considering the fact that Mukhiguda is developing rapidly because of Upper Indravati Project, he used the rational guess work that the price of such land must have increased by Rs.100/- per decimal per year and by such calculation found that the acquired land could be valued at Rs.800/- per decimal at the time of acquisition. Simultaneously, he also took note of the compensation awarded to the claimant for the neighbouring land in M.J.C. No.14/94 at the rate of Rs.1000/- per decimal. The certified copy of the order Ext.D shows that the land of the same claimant was also acquired and compensation at the rate of Rs.1000/- has been paid. Learned referral Court by taking note of this rate as well as the rate calculated by him and adopting a mean path held that the market value of the ac¬quired land was Rs.900/- per decimal at the time of acquisition. Such approach cannot be said to be unreasonable or perverse. Learned referral Court by taking note of this rate as well as the rate calculated by him and adopting a mean path held that the market value of the ac¬quired land was Rs.900/- per decimal at the time of acquisition. Such approach cannot be said to be unreasonable or perverse. On the contrary, the reasoning and conclusion of learned referral Court is very much in tune with the evidence on record and the rate of compensation awarded earlier for similar adjoining lands. The rate awarded in the impugned order, therefore, cannot be interfered and has to be maintained. 7. Consequently, the award is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed on contest, but without any cost. Award confirmed and appeal dismissed.