JUDGMENT : In this appeal challenge has been made to the award passed by the referral court i.e. Civil Judge, (Senior Division). Dharamagarh in the district of Kalahandi in M.J.C. No. 06 of 1996 in the matter of a reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter in short called as 'the Act') 2. Facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are an under:- Land measuring Ac. 3.36 decimal under Khata No. 27 and Plot No.34 with recorded kissam as "Ata Unhari" situated at mouza Golamunda under the jurisdiction of Junagarh P.S., in the district of Kalahandi was acquired for the purpose of construction of right main canal under Upper Indravati Project by virtue of the Government Notification dated 06.10.1993. It may be mentioned here that total extent of land under that plot as stated above was Ac. 9.85 decimals. The Land Acquisition Collector basing on the sale statistics and taking into consideration the other factors offered the market price of the land at Rs.7000/- per acre and accordingly the total compensation amount was assessed at Rs.34,310/-. The respondent No. 1 while receiving the said compensation on protest advanced his claim for higher compensation. This is how the reference has been made under Section 18 of the Act. 3. In the said referral proceeding from the side Land Acquisition Collector it was asserted that the market price of the land has been assessed in consonance with the sale statistics and the work sheets prepared in the office that it should be paid at the rate of Rs. 7000/- per acre and the claim of higher compensation by the respondents was seriously refuted. The respondents on the other hand asserted the assessment of said compensation, particularly the market value of the land as grossly low. 4. Before the referral court, the respondents have examined two witnesses on their behalf, when the appellant has also not legged behind having examined one witness, besides proving the work sheet Ext-A and sale statistics Ext-B. The respondents have also proved the true copy of the sale deed, Ext.1 in support of their claim of higher compensation. 4. Before the referral court, the respondents have examined two witnesses on their behalf, when the appellant has also not legged behind having examined one witness, besides proving the work sheet Ext-A and sale statistics Ext-B. The respondents have also proved the true copy of the sale deed, Ext.1 in support of their claim of higher compensation. The referral court on analysis of evidence and as it appears being alive to the settled possession of law that it is for the claimant seeking the higher compensation by adducing necessary evidence has to justify his entitlement to higher compensation, has finally determined the market value of the acquired land payable at the rate of Rs. 300/- per decimal as on date of publication of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. S. Learned counsel for the State submits that there was no justification on the part of the referral court to determine the market value of the land in any way more than what had been made by the Land Acquisition Collector in the present case, when the said assessment was made looking to the sale statistics and the consideration paid in respect of said transaction of the land of nearby locality as available. It is also her submission that the determination of the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 300/- per decimal by the referral court is not based upon the evidence on record and, therefore, she submits that the same is not sustainable. According to her said evidence is not to be taken into consideration for the purpose of determination of just and proper compensation payable to the respondents in respect of the acquired land. Learned counsel for the respondents on the contrary submits that the referral Court has examined the evidence adduced from both the side, in great detail and upon their proper appreciation, the market value of the acquired land has been fixed. Therefore, according to him, there arises no reason to interfere with the same term to be on a higher side. 6. On such rival submission, this Court is called upon to examine the correctness of the determination of the market value of the acquired land as done by the referral court to conclude as to if the same is tenable as it is or otherwise. Admittedly, the area of acquired land is Ac. 6. On such rival submission, this Court is called upon to examine the correctness of the determination of the market value of the acquired land as done by the referral court to conclude as to if the same is tenable as it is or otherwise. Admittedly, the area of acquired land is Ac. 3.36 decimal and it was of kissam "Ata Unhari". P.W. 1 is the respondent no.1, while attacking the assessment of the market value of the acquired land as done by the Land Acquisition Collector to be grossly low, has further stated that there was a katchha house over the acquired land with tile roofing and that was being used for dwelling purpose and although the kisam of land in that record of right was not that but it was actually fit for being used as homestead and was so used in past and actually was available as such. He has further deposed that they were raising vegetable in some portion of that land and a sum of Rs. 20,000/- per annum was coming to their purse by way of sale of the produces. Of course, he has not led any documentary evidence on the "above score which in the facts and circumstances are not expected also. Next comes the evidence of P.W. 2 who is a neighbouring tenant. His evidence corroborates the evidence of P. W. 1 that there was a dwelling house on a portion of the land. Both P.W.1 and 2 have deposed that the market value of the land at the time of acquisition was Rs. 1000/- per decimal. This P.W.2 has also stated about the income derived by sale of vegetables grown over there by P.W. 1. But his evidence with regard to the said income appears to be highly exaggerated i.e. even more than three times what has been stated by P.W. 1. The referral court as it appears has rightly discarded his evidence with regard to the income from out of the land. But, taking into account the evidence of O.P.W.1 who is none other than the Land Acquisition Collector, that vegetables were being grown over the land has been accepted. The referral court as it appears has rightly discarded his evidence with regard to the income from out of the land. But, taking into account the evidence of O.P.W.1 who is none other than the Land Acquisition Collector, that vegetables were being grown over the land has been accepted. Similarly the evidence of O.P.W. 1 running in support of the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 that the land in question was fit for being converted to homestead, the referral court has held that the said aspect as well as the income that was being fetched from that acquired land have been lost sight of by the Land Acquisition Collector while assessing the market value of the acquired land. At this stage, the sale deed proved from the side of the respondents Ext. 1 needs due consideration. It is seen there from that the land of similar kissam in the vicinity to an extent of 29 decimals had been sold for a consideration of Rs. 6,200/-. It is true that the acquired land is a larger patch and thus the sale consideration in respect of land of small patches of land are not the proper guide, but, then in the present case the evidence stands that the land in question was used for the purpose of growing vegetable crops and over and above, it was fit for being used as homestead. Cumulatively viewing all these evidence on record, the determination of the market value of the land in question as done by the referral court at Rs. 3000/- per decimal is found to be just and proper and no such infirmity is noticed. Therefore, said award is not liable to be interfered with. 7. In the result, the appeals stands dismissed with cost throughout. Appeal dismissed with cost throughout.