Judgment :- 1. Heard Mr. V.Raghavachari, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. V.Ravi, learned Special Government Pleader (AS) for the first respondent. 2. This is an appeal filed by the claimant challenging the judgment and decree in L.A.O.P.No.250 of 2002 on the file of the Principal Sub-Court, Vridhachalam dated 28.01.2005. The land of the appellant was acquired for the purpose of formation of diversion road from Neyveli to Valaiyamadevi Road and the lands are situated in Uyyakondaravi in the Vridhachalam Taluk. The petitioner land was to the extent of 0.09.5 Hectares in RS.No.143/2B, 0.04.5 Hectares in RS.No.143/3A and 0.01.0 Hectares in RS.NO.143/5A. The petitioner's land was estimated to the value of Rs.3,65,528/-. Aggrieved by the compensation fixed, the petitioner raised an objection. Therefore, the matter was referred for determination of market value by the jurisdictional reference court. 3. In his statement of objections, the appellant stated that the land carries coal deposit, therefore, the potential value of lignite coal has to be taken note of. He has also stated that the land contains clay and the value of the clay should also be taken note of. Apart from the above, he has claimed compensation for the standing crops and potential loss towards agriculture. 4. The Reference Court registered the reference as LAOP.No.250 of 2002. Before the Reference Court, on the side of the appellant/claimant, the claimant himself was examined as C.W.1 and one Velayutham was examined as C.W.2. On his side, the claimant has filed Electricity Bills as Ex.C.1 series. On the side of the acquiring authority, one Ramachandran, the Zonal Deputy Tahsildar was examined as R.W.1 and on his side, four documents were filed and marked as Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.4. Ex.R.1 is the Award dated 16.11.1999 passed in L.A.O.P.No.2 of 2009. Ex.R.2 is the statistical data relating to the sale transaction that took place in the village. Ex.R.3 is the sale deed relating to the data land. 5. The Reference Court on the basis of these material observed that in cross examination, the appellant did not give correct answer with reference to the yield from the land and the value of the house and the value of the jack fruit tree. Similarly, the Reference Court also commented about the conduct of the appellant mentioning about the coal deposit of the said land and also the clay that can be excavated from the land. Similarly, the Reference Court also commented about the conduct of the appellant mentioning about the coal deposit of the said land and also the clay that can be excavated from the land. The court below also commented that the claimant has not produced any evidence to show the details regarding the quantum of coal deposit and clay recovered from the said land. Apart from that, the Court below had also commented that the Electricity Bills produced in Ex.C.1 series by the claimant is not at all related to enhancement of compensation for the land to be acquired. On the other hand, the Reference Court was convinced and considered that the evidence produced with reference to the data land in Ex.R.3 is more comparable to the land that was acquired. 6. Even assuming that there was coal deposit, the appellant cannot claim any ownership for the minerals found in the land and it is ultimately belongs to the State. The State is not expected to pay compensation with reference to the minerals that found in the land. It is only the market value sought to be compensated under the provisions of the Act. For some reason, if the appellant is not satisfied with the compensation fixed by the acquiring authority and when the matter was referred for determination of market value, the burden is heavily on the appellant to satisfy the court with reference to the market value of the land. The Supreme Court vide its judgment in Gafar and Others Vs. Moradabad Development Authority and Another reported in 2007 (7) SCC 614 has held that the authority's intention to put the use of the land cannot be taken note of for the purpose determination of compensation. 7. The Reference Court rejected the appellant's claim for higher compensation and confirmed the order passed by the authority and against the same, the appellant filed the present appeal. In the memorandum of appeal grounds, the appellant has stated that his appeal is incapable of valuation, therefore, he paid the minimum court fee of Rs.300/-. 8. Apart from several grounds raised, which is also argued before the Reference Court, he has raised additional ground in paragraph No.5, which is as follows:- "5. In the memorandum of appeal grounds, the appellant has stated that his appeal is incapable of valuation, therefore, he paid the minimum court fee of Rs.300/-. 8. Apart from several grounds raised, which is also argued before the Reference Court, he has raised additional ground in paragraph No.5, which is as follows:- "5. That the learned Judge had failed to appreciate that the corporation at the time of acquisition has promised to provide with an employment, on the contrary the appellant's family was not provided with any employment." In this context, it must be noted that a reference under Section 18 is not an appeal and after reference, the reference court determines the market value of the land, which is acquired. In essence, the Reference Court is controlled by the order of reference and it cannot travel beyond the scope of reference. In this context, it is necessary to refer the judgment of the Supreme Court in Shyamali Das Vs. Illa Chowdhry and Others reported in (2006) 12 SCC page 300. In paragraph 19, the Supreme Court has observed as follows:- "19. The Act is a complete code by itself. It provides for remedies not only to those whose lands have been acquired but also to those who claim the awarded amount or any apportionment thereof. A Land Acquisition Judge derives its jurisdiction from the order of reference. It is bound thereby. His jurisdiction is to determine adequacy or otherwise of the amount of compensation paid under the award made by the Collection." 9. Therefore, the appellant's grounds raised herein is sufficiently answered and the appellant miserably failed to discharge his obligation to justify the enhanced compensation. Again, by raising additional grounds, the appellant cannot expand the scope of reference and this court sitting in appeal under Section 54 also cannot be a party to expand the scope of reference as part of the acquisition process. If any other rehabilitation measures are guaranteed or promised, it is for the appellant having recourse to some other jurisdiction and such issues cannot be urged in the matter of enhancement of compensation. 10. Under these circumstances, the appeal is misconceived and hence the same fails. Accordingly, the Appeal Suit is dismissed. However, there shall be no orders as to costs.