JUDGMENT : Shalini Phansalkar-Joshi, J. By this appeal, filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, the challenge is raised to the judgment and order of the Reference Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Darwha in Land Acquisition Case No.419/2004 dated 21.11.2005. 2. Brief facts of the appeal can be stated as follows: By virtue of Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, issued on 05.01.1991, the land belonging to respondent-claimant, bearing No.34/1 ad-measuring 1 H 36 R of village Dattarampur, Taluka and District Yavatmal came to be acquired for the purpose of Left Bank Canal of Arunawati Project. By his award dated 31.03.1993, the Special Land Acquisition Officer has granted compensation at the rate of Rs. 12,000/- per hectare to the respondents. 3. Being not satisfied with the said amount of compensation, the respondents approached the Reference Court under Section 18 of the Act. In support of their case, the respondents examined their power of attorney Kishor Jaiswal and adduced the evidence relating to various sale instances. On appreciation of evidence, the Reference Court was pleased to enhance the compensation from Rs. 12,000/- per hectare to Rs. 24,000/- per hectare. 4. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, it is now the turn of the acquiring body to prefer this appeal, challenging the enhanced amount of compensation. Hence the point arising for my consideration in this appeal is whether enhancement granted by the Reference is just legal and correct ? 5. The perusal of the judgment of the Reference Court reveals that the Reference Court has considered the sale instances, which were produced by the respondents at Exh.59 to 72 and found that the prevailing market price of the surrounding lands at that time was Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 30,000/- per hectare. Hence having regard to the evidence produced on record by both the parties, the Reference Court has on the basis of the sale instances produced before it, considered it appropriate to award compensation at the rate of Rs. 24,000/- per hectare. As this finding of the Reference Court is based on the evidence produced in the case and enhancement awarded is also not substantial, in the appeal, I do not find any reason to interfere in the said order. 24,000/- per hectare. As this finding of the Reference Court is based on the evidence produced in the case and enhancement awarded is also not substantial, in the appeal, I do not find any reason to interfere in the said order. As the compensation awarded by the Reference Court is just, adequate and fair, the appeal holds no merit and hence stands dismissed, with no order as to costs.