JUDGMENT : S. Panda, J. - This appeal is directed against the award dated 25.3.1994 passed by the Learned Civil Judge (Senior Judge), Angul, in L.A. Misc. Case No. 181 of 1992 in a reference u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). 2. The facts of the case as narrated in record are as follows: The Respondent-claimants are the owners of eight plots of land of different varieties, total measuring an area of Ac.2.25 decimals, situated in village Naktinali under Kishorenagar Police Station in the district of Angul. The said land along with the standing trees was acquired by the State Government for Talcher-Sambalpur Rail Link Project for which a notification u/s 4(1) of the Act was published in the Extra-ordinary Gazette No. 1357 dated 19.9.1989. From out of the eight plots acquired, three plots were Sarada Jala-I and the other plots were Sarada Jala-II, Sarada-II, Sarada-III and Taila. Apart from solatium and interest, the Land Acquisition Officer assessed the valuation of the lands at Rs. 28,215/- and for the trees at Rs. 150/-. In total, he awarded compensation of Rs 41,436/-. The Respondents received the said compensation amount on protest and filed their objection claiming higher compensation which was referred to Court u/s 18 of the Act. In the objection, the claimants stated that the valuation determined by the Land Acquisition Officer was very low as the case land was irrigated land and taking the variety of the land into consideration, its market value should be fixed at Rs. 3,000/ - per gunth. In support of his claim for higher compensation, the claimants examined one witness and also filed some documentary evidence, whereas the Land Acquisition Officer neither examined any witness nor did he file any document. The Referral Court, considering the evidence and the materials available on record and taking into consideration the advantages available to the land, determined the valuation of the land and applied 16 multiplier. Aggrieved by the award passed by the Referral Court, the Land Acquisition Officer has filed this appeal. 3. Learned Additional Standing Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the Referral Court should have applied 12 multiplier instead of 16 and as such, interference of this Court is warranted. 4. Aggrieved by the award passed by the Referral Court, the Land Acquisition Officer has filed this appeal. 3. Learned Additional Standing Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the Referral Court should have applied 12 multiplier instead of 16 and as such, interference of this Court is warranted. 4. Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent-claimants submitted that since the Land Acquisition Officer did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence and the Referral Court determined the price of the land taking into consideration the evidence adduced by the claimants, there was no basis for the Land Acquisition Officer to determine the valuation as he did and the Referral Court has rightly determined the valuation of the acquired land for which reason, the same should not be interfered with by this Court. 5. After considering the rival submissions made by the Learned Counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the decision of this Court in the case of State of Orissa (L.A. Zone Officer) Vs. Giridhari Nayak, and the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Gurcharan Singh and another etc. wherein it has been held that the proper multiplier should be 12, this Court applying 12 multiplier determines the valuation of the acquired land of the Respondents at Rs. 18,000/- for Sarada Jala-I, Rs. 17,000/- for Sarada Jala-II and Rs. 16,000/- for Sarada Jala-III and Taila. 6. The claimants are entitled to other statutory benefits as awarded by the Referral Court and the award passed by it in respect of the trees is confirmed. With the above modifications, the First Appeal is disposed of. No costs.