Pradip Mohanty, J.
1. This First Appeal is directed against the Judgment & Order Dated 08.09.1989 passed by the Learned Subordinate Judge, Balasore in Land Acquisition Misc. Case No. 242 of 1988 awarding compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,10,000 per acre.
2. The facts of the case, as borne out from the records, are that the land measuring 91 decimals appertaining to plot No. 323 (Ac.0.45 decimals), plot No. 324 (Ac.0.38 decimals) & plot No. 368 (Ac.0.08 decimals) under khata No. 274 of village Karanjia belonging to the Respondent was acquired for establishment of Interim Test Range vide notification published in the Orissa Gazette on 24.10.1983 under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The Land Acquisition Collector taking into consideration the sale statistics determined the market value of the land at the rate of Rs. 80,000 per acre. The Respondent received the compensation on protest & filed objection claiming higher compensation on the ground that the acquired land was fit for homestead & importance of the locality had been increased. The Land Acquisition Collector received the objection & referred it to the Subordinate Judge, Balasore under Section 18 of the Act for adjudication which was registered as L.A. Misc. Case No. 242 of 1988. The Respondent examined one witness on his behalf & proved the sale deed dated 16.01.1984 as Ext.1. The Land Acquisition Collector also examined one witness & exhibited the sale statistics, apart from other documents, as Ext.B. The Learned Subordinate Judge on analysis of the oral & documentary evidence adduced by the parties held that the Respondent is entitled to get compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,10,000 per acre as market value with other admissible benefits according to law & that 9% interest for the first year & 15% interest per year for the rest period till payment of the dues made to him & cost of Rs. 100.
3. Miss Mishra, Learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the Appellant submits that there is no evidence on record to show that the market value of the lands in the area was higher on 24.10.1983 when Section 4 (1) notification was made. There is no finding recorded by the Learned Subordinate Judge to the effect that the land in question is homestead or on the date of notification the area, in which the acquired land situates, assumed importance. Therefore, the higher compensation as awarded by the referral Court is without any basis & liable to be set aside.
4. Perused the record. In the instant case, the land was acquired in the year 1983. The land acquisition case was disposed of in 1984. The referral Court taking note of the oral evidence of P.W.1, the documents like Ext. 1, the certified copy of the sale deed & Ext. C, the orders passed in Land Acquisition Case Nos. 6/83 & 7/83, & considering the growing importance of the locality as well as the average market value of the land in the area has awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,10,000 per acre. So it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed by the referral Court in enhancing the compensation amount. The impugned award does not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference of this Court.
5. In the result, the First Appeal is dismissed & the impugned award is upheld.