JUDGMENT S.Sujatha, J. - This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 10.12.2012, passed in LAC No.218 of 2011 by the Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Athani, whereby the compensation determined by the SLAO has been modified redetermining the market value of the acquired (subject) lands at Rs.2,85,715/- per acre with statutory benefits denying the enhancement of compensation sought inasmuch as the Houses/ Well/ Borewell are concerned. 2. The appellants are the erstwhile owners of Sy.No.508/5B measuring 5 guntas, Sy.No.508/6A measuring 37 guntas and Sy.No.508/6B measuring 2 acres 36 guntas situated at Satti village in Athani Taluka of Belagavi District. The respondents had acquired the aforesaid lands by notification dated 01.03.2007 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('Act' for short) for the purpose of Hipparagi Barriage Project in Athani Taluka and awarded compensation of Rs.1,08,753/- per acre in respect of Sy.Nos.508/5B and 508/6A and Rs.64,664/- per acre in respect of Sy.No.508/6B. Aggrieved by the said compensation awarded, the appellants had sought for reference under Section 18(1) of the Act. The reference Court has fixed the market value of the subject lands at Rs.2,85,715/- per acre rejecting the claim of enhancement in respect of Houses/ Well/ Borewell. Being aggrieved, the appellants are before this Court. 3. The arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants are two fold. Firstly it was argued that the compensation awarded towards the lands acquired is inadequate and secondly, the denial of enhancement of compensation relating to the Houses/ Well/ Borewell by the reference Court is unjustifiable. 4. Learned counsel for the claimants vehemently argued that the subject lands were highly potential and irrigated lands. The claimants were growing commercial crops like sugarcane, maze, ground-nut, chilly etc., and the same was substantiated by adducing cogent evidence but the reference Court ignoring the material evidence has determined the meager compensation which necessarily calls for interference by this Court in enhancing the compensation. 5. Learned counsel further argued that the estimation prepared by the Chartered Engineer as per Annexures P73 to P78 establishes the factum of the value relating to Houses/ Well/ Borewell. In deed the author of the said documents, Shri B.S.Patil was examined as PW2. The reference Court ignoring the same, confirmed the compensation awarded by SLAO in respect of these items. The reference Court has not considered the judgment passed in MFA No.24162/2009 in proper perspective. In deed the author of the said documents, Shri B.S.Patil was examined as PW2. The reference Court ignoring the same, confirmed the compensation awarded by SLAO in respect of these items. The reference Court has not considered the judgment passed in MFA No.24162/2009 in proper perspective. The poor agriculturists solely depending on the agricultural activities are entitled to just and reasonable compensation in view of the compulsory acquisition of their lands by the State. 6. Learned counsel Shri G.K.Hiregoudar appearing for respondent No.2 beneficiary placing reliance on the Cognate Bench decision of this Court in MFA Crob. No.100182/2016 in MFA No.100175/2014 submitted that this Court considering the various relevant aspects for determining the compensation vis- -vis finality reached in SLP No.8107/2016 relating to the compensation determined for identical lands has assessed the compensation at Rs.4,05,900/- per acre for the lands acquired under the Notification dated 12.04.2007 issued under Section 4(1) of the Act. On the basis of the said decision, the acquired lands of the appellants herein being similarly situated are entitled to similar compensation fixing the market value of the acquired lands at Rs.4,05,900/- per acre with all statutory benefits. However, the claim of enhancement towards the Houses/ Well/ Borewell requires to be rejected since the reference Court has profusely analyzed the material evidence on record inasmuch as the estimation made by the Chartered Engineer as per Annexures-P73 to P78. 7. Learned AGA appearing for respondent No.1 State has supported the arguments of the learned counsel for respondent No.2. 8. We have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material on record. 9. As regards the compensation determined by this Court with respect to similarly situated lands acquired under the notification dated 12.04.2007, the Cognate Bench while considering the claim made by the land looser for enhancement of compensation has referred to the decision of this Court in MFA No.23768/2013, whereby the market value was fixed at Rs.3,69,000/- along with statutory benefits as far as irrigated lands are concerned acquired under the notification of the year 2004-05. The said decision being challenged by the beneficiary before the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP No.8107/2016 and subsequently 5% of escalation having been added for the lands acquired for the subsequent years, the compensation was fixed at Rs.4,05,900/- per acre. 10. The said decision being challenged by the beneficiary before the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP No.8107/2016 and subsequently 5% of escalation having been added for the lands acquired for the subsequent years, the compensation was fixed at Rs.4,05,900/- per acre. 10. It is also not in dispute that the said determination made by this Court in MFA No.23768/2013 is the basis for determining the market value of the lands in catena of judgments rendered by this Court and the same has been consistently followed even in Lok-Adalaths. Considering the same, the market value of the subject lands can be safely determined at Rs.4,05,900/- per acre with statutory benefits including interest and costs denying the interest for the period of 520 days in filing the appeal belatedly before this Court. 11. As regards the claim made inasmuch as the enhancement of compensation relating to the Houses/ Well/ Borewell, the reasons assigned by the reference Court at para 32 is in conformity with the evidence available on record. The estimation given by PW2 in respect of these items is not based on any technical/professional aspects as admitted by the said witness himself. In order to substantiate the estimation of the Chartered Engineer PW2, no evidence has been placed by the appellants regarding the expenditures incurred by them relating to the aforesaid items. Ipse dixit statement of the appellants' witnesses PW2 cannot be accepted sans supported by the substantial material. Though it was argued that the SLAO has relied upon the estimation made by the Assistant Executive Engineer to determine the market value of Houses/ Well/ Borewell existing in the lands at the time of acquisition, it is the report submitted by the competent authority exercising the functions under the State machinery. It is well settled that ultimately any estimation is a guess work and the said guess work need not be wild one and has to be just and reasonable. In the absence of material evidence to support the estimation of PW2, reference Court considering the value determined by SLAO cannot be held to be unjustifiable or unreasonable. Accordingly, we approve the same. 12. In the absence of material evidence to support the estimation of PW2, reference Court considering the value determined by SLAO cannot be held to be unjustifiable or unreasonable. Accordingly, we approve the same. 12. For the reasons aforesaid, we pass the following: ORDER (i) The appeal filed by the claimants is allowed enhancing the market value of the subject lands at Rs.4,05,900/- per acre with all statutory benefits including interest and costs; (ii) The compensation awarded by the SLAO relating to Houses/ Well/ Borewell in the subject land confirmed by the reference Court is approved; (iii) However, the interest for the delayed period of 520 days in filing the appeal before this Court is denied; (iv) The Registry shall draw the modified award accordingly.