Judgment This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 13.8.1998 passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Amravati in Land Acquisition Case No.115/1987. 2] The lands and residential structures of village Warud Bagji in Amravati District were compulsorily acquired for Upper Wardha Irrigation Project. Total plot area 226.50 sq meter having construction admeasuring 114.02 sq. meter owned by the respondent was acquired and for that the Reference Court granted compensation @ Rs.500/-per sq. meter for the constructed portion and Rs.25/-per sq. meter for the open plot. Thus total compensation awarded to the respondent comes to Rs.59,822/-. This judgment and award is under challenge in this appeal. 3] The land owner mainly relied on the evidence of expert-witness and C.S.R. Rates of 1990. Taking C.S.R. Rate 1990 as base, the learned Reference Court enhanced the compensation. Learned A G P Mr. Yengal contended that the evidence relied upon is wholly insufficient to enhance the compensation either for constructed portion or for open plot area. None for the respondent. The point arises for my consideration is: A] Whether the learned Reference Court was justified in awarding compensation of Rs.59,822/-as against compensation of Rs.63,614.30 claimed by the petitioner? 4] While placing reliance upon the C.S.R. Rates for the year 1990 the land owner led evidence of comparable sale instances of the year 1975. The learned Reference Court discarded the same by assigning cogent reasons and rightly so. While applying the C.S.R. Rate of 1990 to the facts of the present case, the learned Reference Court observed: “If we perused the C.S.R. rates of 1990., the C.S.R. rates for residential construction of bricks and cement are given as Rs.2100/-(Rs. Two thousand one hundred) per square meter. If the version of the petitioner's expert to the effect that the cost of construction of house building in mud is 40% of the cost of construction of house buildings in bricks and cement is accepted, it can be seen that by mathematical calculations, the cost of construction of houses made of mud in the year 1990 comes to Rs.840/-per Sqr. meter. This is the cost arrived at, if we proceed on the hypothetical assumption, that houses in question were constructed in the year 1990. meter. This is the cost arrived at, if we proceed on the hypothetical assumption, that houses in question were constructed in the year 1990. ” 5] The learned Reference Court then undertook exercise of asserting the year of construction of the house in question, for that she relied upon evidence of expert i.e. P.W.1 – Prabhakar in respect of the house. He deposed: “I have seen the house of Madhaorao Deshmukh. His house number is 142. His plinth area is 114.02 sq. meters. The plot area is 262.50 sq. meters. The valuation rate was calculated at Rs.580/-per sq. meters. The total cost of structure comes to Rs.88,935/-. Cost of electrification comes to Rs.5894/-. The cost of plot comes to Rs.7875/-. The total costs comes to Rs.1,05,704/-. The report is prepared by me under my signature. It is filed at Exh.17 in L.A.C. No.115/87.” 6] The learned Reference Court reading between the lines arrived at the conclusion that the house in question might have been constructed in the year 1973-74. After considering the depreciation @ 13% the Reference Court was of the view that the cost of the construction per square meter cannot be less than Rs.730/-as on 1977. Then observed “After taking stock of the entire situation, and considering the situation of the acquired land, the purpose for which it was acquired, in my opinion, the acquired houses can be appropriately valued at the rate of Rs.500/-per Sqr. meter” 7] It is thus obvious that while fixing the rate of constructed portion as well as open plot, the learned Reference Court adopted lowest possible rate. In that view of the matter, there is nothing for the State to make grievance about the rate of compensation awarded. Ex-facie 50/-per sq. ft. i.e. Rs.500/-per sq.meter and Rs.2.50 per sq.ft. i.e. Rs.25/-per sq.meter appears to be on lower side. Thus there is no substance in the appeal. Appeal is dismissed accordingly with no order as to costs.