ORDER

1. The controversy in this appeal is confined to the award of compensation in respect of eucalyptus trees. The learned counsel for the State contended that there was a serious dispute as to the number of trees and the rate of compensation awarded per tree. According to him, having regard to the nature, growth and condition of the trees, award of compensation at the rate of Rs 120 per tree was not at all justified. He also submitted that 25,000 eucalyptus trees were not there; they were less in number.

2. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the respondents have claimed compensation in respect of only 18,250 eucalyptus trees. He also submitted that when both the courts, on appreciation of the evidence, have recorded a finding that the compensation of Rs 120 per tree was proper market value for eucalyptus tree, this Court may not interfere with the impugned judgment. He added that the entire amount of compensation has already been paid by the State to the respondents.

3. In the light of what is stated above, we are satisfied that the impugned judgment does not call for any interference for the reasons that the respondents themselves have clai