JUDGMENT D. Dash, J. - The Appellants by filing this Appeal have assailed the judgment/award dated 24.02.2020 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rairangpur in L.A. Misc. Case No.35 of 2017 in the matter of reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the L.A. Act'). The land measuring Ac.5.88 decimals in nine plots recorded under Khata No.84/13 of Mouza-Nandua belonging to the Respondents (claimants) had been acquired by the State for the purpose of construction of Subarnarekah Ichha Dam. The Land Acquisition Officer had awarded compensation of Rs.7,31,277/- for the said acquired land. In doing so, the market value of the land under Sarad-I and II kissam had been assessed at Rs.98,700/- per acre whereas the market value of the homestead land under acquisition had been fixed at Rs.1,00,000/- per acre. For the land under kissam Dahi-I , the Land Acquisition Officer had fixed the market value at Rs.65,200/- per acre. However, in view of the demand raised by the Respondents for payment of higher compensation, the matter stood referred to the Court under section 18 of the Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Referral Court') for determination of just and proper consideration for the said acquired land of the Respondents (claimants). 2. The Respondents (claimants) have advanced a claim that the market value of Gharabari and agricultural lands would be more than Rs.15,00,000/- per acre and it is said that the compensation as has been assessed by the Land Acquisition Officer is grossly inadequate and in that exercise, actual value of the acquired lands viewing all the attending factors has not been considered. The above claim of the Respondents (claimants) was resisted by the Appellant. Before the Referral Court the Respondents (claimants) examined himself as C.W.1 and another independent witness has come to the witness box on his behalf as C.W.2. From the side of the Appellant, the certified copy of the Bench Mark Valuation sheet supplied by the Sub-Registrar, Bahalda has been proved and marked as Ext.A to A/2 series. 3. Before the Referral Court the Respondents (claimants) examined himself as C.W.1 and another independent witness has come to the witness box on his behalf as C.W.2. From the side of the Appellant, the certified copy of the Bench Mark Valuation sheet supplied by the Sub-Registrar, Bahalda has been proved and marked as Ext.A to A/2 series. 3. The Referral Court going to determine the just and proper compensation towards the acquired land as on the date of publication of the Notification under section 4(1) of the L.A. Act, i.e., on 04.07.2012 has finally determined the market value of the acquired land under Sarad-I kissam at Rs.15,00,000/- per acre, Sarad-II kissam of land at Rs.12,00,000/- per acre, Dahi-I as well as Sarad-III kissam of land at Rs.10,00,000/- per acre and home- stead land @ Rs.30,00,000/- per acre. Having so answered, the Referral Court has directed the Appellant to make the payment of compensation for the acquired land computing the market value of the lands in question at the above rate and pay the same to the Respondents (claimants) along with all the available statutory benefits. 4. Heard Mr. G.N. Rout, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the Appellant and Mr. B. Pujari, learned counsel for the Respondents. Perused the judgment/award passed by the learned Referral Court. 5. The Referral Court earlier in disposing the Land Acquisition Case No.30/16 on 19.09.2018 had determined the market value of the homestead kissam of land situated in the same village and in the very vicinity at Rs.30,00,000/- per acre. In that case the market value of the land under Sarad-I and II had been determined at Rs.15,00,000/- and Rs.12,00,000/- per acre respectively. In another Land Acquisition Case No.2 of 2018, the learned Referral Court in its judgment/award dated 30.09.2019 had found the market value of Dahi-I kissam of land of the same village and locality at Rs.10,00,000/- per acre. In the other Land Acquisition Case No.31 of 2016 the market value of the land under Sarad-III kissam of that village and locality had been determined at Rs.10,00,000/- per acre by the judgment and award dated 30.09.2019. In the other Land Acquisition Case No.31 of 2016 the market value of the land under Sarad-III kissam of that village and locality had been determined at Rs.10,00,000/- per acre by the judgment and award dated 30.09.2019. It is not in dispute that all these lands covered under aforesaid L.A. Case Nos.30/2016, 2/2018 and 31/2016 had been acquired for the same purpose by that very Notification under section 4(1) of the L.A. Act dated 04.07.2021 by which the land involved in the present case was notified to be acquired and accordingly, had been acquired by the State. The judgment/award passed in LA Case No. 30 of 2016 being challenged in Appeal vide LAA No.80 of 2019 finding no such reason/justification to interfere, this Court has confirmed the same. 6. Learned counsel for the Appellant has not been able to place any material that the market value of different kissam of land as had been determined in the above noted two other cases by the Referral Court being further challenged has been modified/varied. Here is a case where large chunk of land of different kisams belonging to the Respondents (claimants) has been acquired and, it is well inferable that the Respondents by such acquisition have not only lost their land but also has been totally deprived of that source of income for all times to come in future. When other land owners of the village whose lands have been acquired for the same purpose under the same Notification have been granted with compensation at the enhanced rate as afore- stated, it stands to no reason as to why the same standard would not be applied for determining the compensation towards the lands of the Respondents (claimants) which has been acquired. In fact the very object and reasons behind the introduction of the provision contained in section 27-A of the LA Act is loud and clear that the State should not be a party to the discriminatory treatment to the land loosers for the acquisition of their land under one notification and it does not stand to reason to pay less compensation to a land looser merely because he has not sought for the reference for enhancement of compensation when another similarly situated is being paid more only for having sought for a reference. Therefore, as per the provision of section 27-A of the LA Act all the land loosers would be entitled to get similar treatment in the assessment of compensation for the acquisition of his land if the compensation is determined at a higher rate in a reference made at the instance of another land looser whose land has been acquired under same notification, provided he moves the Competent Authority within thirty days of passing of said award in the reference subject to consideration that the lands are of the same quality and attached with same facilities/ benefits. In the present case, the Appellant has not produced any such evidence on the above score to show that the lands covered under abovestated LA proceedings are not similarly situated with the lands of Respondent which have been acquired. Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that majority people of the locality live on cultivation as the employment in other sectors is very limited and it is also so stated at the Bar. In view of the aforesaid, the Referral Court when has determined the market value of different kissams of land of the Respondent, in consonance with the determination of the market value of the lands acquired under that very notification as has been made under the earlier judgments/ awards no such infirmity is noticed therein. 7. In that view of the matter, the answer to the reference returned by the Referral Court is found to be well in order, warranting no interference. Accordingly, the Appeal stands dismissed without cost. 8. The Appellant is hereby directed to deposit the enhanced compensation amount with all the available statutory benefits/entitlement within four months hence and the payment to the Respondents (claimants) is only to be routed through the Referral Court and not in any other way and on the failure of the Appellant to deposit as aforesaid, the amount shall carry further interest @ 09% per annum till payment. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances, it is felt the necessary in the interest of justice to direct the Referral Court that upon deposit of the amount as aforesaid by the Appellant; 80% of the same would be kept in unecumberable and non- pledgeable long term Fixed Deposit of ten years at the minimum in the name of the Respondents (claimants) upon due apportionment amongst them in accordance with their share in any Nationalized Bank with monthly interest payable to them through their Savings Bank Accounts and the rest 20% shall be paid to the Respondents (claimants) by keeping the same in deposit in their Savings Bank Accounts in the said Bank where the Fixed deposit would be kept.