JUDGMENT The state has called in question the award passed by the referral Court in a Land Acquisition Reference under Section 18 of the L.A. Act awarding compensation to the respondent determining the market value of the land at the rate of Rs. 1,500/- per decimal with other statutory benefits. 2.In view of the notification under Section 4(I) of the Act dated 28.12.1991, the land measuring Ac. 0.02 decimals belonging to the petitioners in their possession was acquired. The land Acquisition Collector awarded the compensation assessing the market value of the land at the rate of Rs. 31,000/- per acre. The claimant-respondent claimed the market value at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per decimal. The referral Court taking into account the evidence and upon their evaluation has found the market value of the land to be Rs. 15,00/- per decimal as on the date of publication of the notification under Section 4(I) of the Act. 3. Learned counsel for the State submits that the market value is on higher side and that is against the weight of the evidence on record. Therefore, she urges that the award needs appropriate reduction. 4.Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submits in support of the market value as fixed by the referral Court. According to him, it is based on proper appreciation of evidence. 5.On the above rival submission, it is now necessary to go through the evidence on record. The petitioner has examined himself and two other witnesses. All have specifically stated about the market value of the land measuring 9 decimals as to have been sold at the rate of Rs. 30,000/- in the nearby area. P.W. 3 has also deposed that this acquired land is by the side of the main road and its market value according to his estimation would be Rs. 10,000/- to Rs.12,000/- per decimal. Although the witness has been examined from the side of the State, he has feigned his ignorance as to if the market value is adequate, which has been claimed. The evidence is that there are numbers of cement factories which are situated near the land in question. The same has also been admitted by the witness examined from the side of the State. Thus the referral Court has come to the conclusion that the land in question has the potentiality as regards its user as of then and in future. The same has also been admitted by the witness examined from the side of the State. Thus the referral Court has come to the conclusion that the land in question has the potentiality as regards its user as of then and in future. In view of evidence as discussed above, this Court finds no such reason to disturb the said view taken by the referral Court. The market value as determined by the referral Court is thus found to be just and proper. While parting with the case, it is felt apposite to observe that perhaps this appeal has been preferred by the State without even carrying out any examination at their level with regard to the specific finding that has been rendered by the referral Court. The Land Acquisition Collector when has acted in a mechanical manner, the same approach is seen to have continued even after the award of the referral Court. The State and its functionaries appears to have not changed their attitude in the matter of approaching and pursuing the litigation against a citizen forgetting for a moment that the litigation by the State against the citizen especially in such matter should not be pursued without due examination of pros and cons, just for the sake of defending the claim being advanced even though it is genuine. It should be kept in mind that the State fight the litigation at the cost and expenses met by the citizen and they contribute by way of tax or otherwise. Therefore, such lackadaisical fashion has to be shunned by the State functionaries as also the mindset that let it be decided by the Court. In such matter therefore concerned officials cannot wriggle out of the liability for the loss suffered by the State in pursuing these fruitless litigation and therefore actions as deemed fit and proper need be taken in this regard without further loss of time. 6.In the result, the appeal stands dismissed with cost throughout. A copy of this judgment be sent to the chief secretary and Principal Secretary, Revenue for favour of information, necessary instruction and needful action as deemed fit and proper. Appeal dismissed.