JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal takes an exception to the judgment and award dated 12.12.2005, delivered in Land Acquisition Case No.202/1999, by the 2nd Adhoc Additional District Judge, Akola, thereby enhancing and granting additional compensation amount of Rs.51,715/, to respondent No.1, the claimant. 2. Brief facts of the appeal can be stated as follows: Respondent No.1 was the owner of plot, bearing No.62/1 admeasuring 110 sq. mtr. with a constructed house thereon, admeasuring 50 sq. mtr. situate at village Bidgaon, Tq. Murtizapur, District Akola. By virtue of notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, in March, 1995, the said plot of land, with constructed house thereon came to be acquired. As per the award passed by the S.L.A.O. on 21.04.1997, respondent No.1 was granted compensation at the rate of Rs.50/per sq. mtr. for the open plot of land and Rs.495/per sq. mtr. for the constructed portion. Thus, the total compensation awarded to the respondent No.1 by S.L.A.O. was Rs.5500/for open plot and Rs.29,185/for the house constructed thereon. 3. Being not satisfied with the said amount of compensation, respondent No.1 approached the Reference Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. In support of his case, respondent No.1 examined himself and also adopted the evidence of expert Rameshwar Junekar, which was recorded in another reference petition. 4. On appreciation of this evidence, the Reference Court was pleased to reject the enhancement in compensation amount awarded for open plot of land. However, as regards the house property, Reference court was pleased to enhance the compensation from Rs.495/to Rs.1369/per sq. mtr. 5. Now it is the turn of the appellant, the acquiring body, to challenge the said enhancement. According to learned counsel for appellant, Reference Court has not taken into consideration the fact that the house of the respondent No.1 was constructed in the year 1973 i.e. about 20 years prior to the acquisition. Moreover the valuer has not deducted requisite amount towards the depreciation. It is also submitted that the valuer's report was not produced; only his evidence recorded in another proceeding was adopted, by filing a pursis. In such situation, it is urged that, in the absence of evidence of any sale instance of the adjoining area, as the Reference Court has enhanced the amount of compensation by Rs.51,715/, it needs to be set aside. 6. In such situation, it is urged that, in the absence of evidence of any sale instance of the adjoining area, as the Reference Court has enhanced the amount of compensation by Rs.51,715/, it needs to be set aside. 6. It is brought to the notice of this Court that matters arising out of same notification, same village, wherein the view taken by Reference Court is upheld and appeals filed by present appellant are dismissed; some of such appeals are First Appeal Nos.291/2006 and 189/2006. 7. As the finding of the Reference Court rejecting the claim of respondent No.1 for enhanced amount of compensation for the open plot is not challenged by filing a crossobjection or crossappeal, that finding has become final. Hence, the only issue which arises for my determination in this appeal is whether the Reference Court was justified in enhancing the amount of compensation for constructed house from Rs.405/to Rs.1369/per sq. mtr? 8. According to learned counsel for appellant, the enhancement granted by the Reference Court is almost double the amount awarded by the S.L.A.O. and it is also without any adequate material produced on record by the respondent No.1. 9. However, this submission cannot be accepted as in the present case, by filing a separate pursis, the appellant and the respondent No.1 has adopted the evidence of valuer Junekar, which was recorded in another reference petition. Hence, the Reference Court has considered the evidence of the valuer Junekar, recorded in L.A.C. No.4/2000 the certified copy of which was filed on record and both the parties adopted the said evidence. 10. Now, as per the evidence of Junekar, the value of the house comes to Rs.89,700/. The Reference Court has found the report of valuer as fact finding report and did not found the same as exorbitant and also considering the fact that the said construction was made about 20 years prior, depriciated the valuation given by valuer by 10% and accordingly enhanced the compensation by additional amount of Rs.51,715/. 11. Hence, considering the marginal increase in the amount of compensation and having regard to the evidence on record, I do not find that any ground is made out to interfere in the impugned judgment and order of the Reference Court. The appeal therefore, holds no merit and hence stands dismissed, with no order as to costs.