ORDER 09.08.2007 - This appeal has been directed against the order of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhawanipatna passed in MJC No. 3 of 2001 answering a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (in short,’the Act’). Ac. 2.68 dec. of land appertaining to Holding No. 118, Plot Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 of village Budhipadar in the district of Kalahandi belonging to the claimant-respondent was acquired for the construction of Turla Minor Irrigation Project vide Govern¬ment notification No. 18069 dated 23.3.1999, and declaration No. 59667 dated 7.12.1999. The Land Acquisition Collector after conducting enquiry under Section 11 of the Act awarded compensa¬tion of Rs. 76,610/- including solatium to the claimant. Being dissatisfied with the said amount of compensation, the claimant-respondent requested for reference of the matter to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Act and in consequence, the matter came up before learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhawanipat¬na in the above noted M.J.C. To justify the claim of higher compensation, the claimant-respondent examined himself as P.W.1 and produced the certified copy of judgment in MJC No. 1 of 2001 as Ext. 1. The Land Acquisition Collector examined himself as O.P.W.1 and produced the Xerox copy of the working sheet of village Budhipadar as Ext. A. After considering the oral and documentary evidence produced by the parties, the learned referral Court came to the conclusion that the market value of the acquired land would be Rs. 80,000/- per acre. He accordingly directed payment of compensation along¬with other statutory benefits. Aggrieved by the said award, the State has filed this appeal. Mr. Sangram Das, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the impugned award is unsustainable because the learned referral Court has not made any discussion about the annual yield of the acquired land and has mechanically adopted the rate of compensation awarded in MJC No. 1 of 2001. Mr. B. Mohanty-3, learned counsel appearing for the claim¬ant-respondent supports the impugned award. Even if the rate of compensation awarded in MJC No. 1 of 2001 is not taken into consideration, yet there is evidence of P.W.1 to the effect that he was growing vegetables such as brin¬jals in the acquired land and was selling 40 quintals of brinjals per year. According to him, at that point of time brinjals were sold at Rs. 5/- per kg. This evidence has not been discredited in cross-examination. According to him, at that point of time brinjals were sold at Rs. 5/- per kg. This evidence has not been discredited in cross-examination. The evidence of O.P.W.1 also shows that the lands of village Budhipadar are fertile land and better than the lands of the neighbouring plot. With such evidence at hand, the impugned award at the rate of Rs. 80,000/- per acre cannot be said to be unreasonable or arbitrary. The impugned award is accordingly confirmed and the appeal is dismissed on contest, but without any cost. Appeal dismissed.