JUDGMENT S.K. MISHRA, J. — In this Appeal, the State of Orissa assails the order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhubaneswar in L.A. Misc. Case No.322 of 1994, wherein the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) has passed the order that the petitioner is entitled to get compensation at the rate of Rs.4,00,000/- per acre with other benefits such as 12% additional compensation under Section 23 (1-A), 30% solatium under Section 23(2) and interest at the rate of 9% per annum for the first year and 15% per annum for the subsequent years till actual payment is made as provided under Section 28 of the Act. 2.As per the Notification published in the Official Gazette dated 11.01.1984 under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred as “Act” for brevity) and subsequent Notifications under different provisions of the Act, the State Government acquired Ac.0.450 decimals of land under Khata No.7, Plot Nos. 73 and 74 and Ac.1.340 decimals of land under Khata No.6, Plot nos. 81, 83, 85, 86 and 87 of Mouza-Bharatpur belonging to the respondents for the purpose of constructing Park in the name and style “Ekamra Kanan”. The Government fixed market rate of Rs.50,000/- per acre and other admissible benefits under the Act. The Respondents were aggrieved by the fixation of rate and hence, the same was referred to the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhubaneswar in L.A. Misc. Case No.322 of 1994. 3.The appellant admitted all the relevant facts stated by the respondents before the Court of original jurisdiction but disputed the assertion about the market rate of the acquired land. The parties went to trial and examined witnesses. After taking into consideration all the materials on record, the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) came to the conclusion that as there is no dispute over the fact that village Bharatpur adjoins village Nayapalli and Government acquired various lands in both the villages for the purpose of “Ekamra Kanan”; the fact that in L.A. Misc. After taking into consideration all the materials on record, the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) came to the conclusion that as there is no dispute over the fact that village Bharatpur adjoins village Nayapalli and Government acquired various lands in both the villages for the purpose of “Ekamra Kanan”; the fact that in L.A. Misc. Case No.315 of 1994, this Court has determined the market value of the land involved in that case at Rs.4,00,000/- per acre; and the fact that the lands in both the villages were acquired under the same Notification as per the undisputed testimony of P.W.1, the learned Civil Judge came to the conclusion that the market value of the land acquired in this case was Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees four lakhs) per acre. Accordingly, the reference was answered. Such order has been assailed in this First Appeal by the State. The ground taken by the appellant is that fixation of market value is based on conjectures and surmises and not on material facts. 4.In course of hearing of this appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the matter was covered by the decision of this Court dated 9th October, 2002 in First Appeal No.284 of 1998. On perusal of the order passed by a Bench of this Court it is seen that by virtue of the market value fixed in other land acquisition cases of the same area of land situated in close vicinity has been taken to be very relevant and cogent guide for determining the market value of the land acquired. In this case also the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) has relied upon the valuation made by the Court relating to the land similarly situated in the near vicinity in earlier cases. It is however seen from the judgment relied upon that in those cases, though valuation has been fixed at Rs.4,00,000/- per acre, the same has not been challenged by the appellant and it is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that compensation at the rate of Rs.4,00,000/- per acre has already been paid to the land outstee in those cases. 5.Keeping in view the aforesaid circumstances, this Court comes to the conclusion that no irregularity has been committed by the Court of original jurisdiction by raising the market value of the land acquired from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.4,00,000/- per acre in the reference made under the Land Acquisition Act. 5.Keeping in view the aforesaid circumstances, this Court comes to the conclusion that no irregularity has been committed by the Court of original jurisdiction by raising the market value of the land acquired from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.4,00,000/- per acre in the reference made under the Land Acquisition Act. 6.Accordingly, the Appeal is devoid of any merit and the same is dismissed. No cost. Appeal dismissed.