1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 2nd November 1995 passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ratnagiri, sitting at Sawantwadi, allowing the reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short "the Act").

3. The respondent was the owner of the land bearing survey no.40 hissa nos.7 and 8 admeasuring 77 ares and 72 ares respectively situated at village Vabhave, Taluka Vaibhavwadi, District Ratnagiri (for short "the acquired land"). A notification under section 4 of the Act was published on 1st March 1988 proposing to acquire the said lands for the purpose of construction of a Tahsil office. The declaration under section 6 of the Act was made on 17th April 1989 and the award was published on 27th April 1989, awarding compensation of Rs.17,520/- to the respondent. On an application of the respondent, the Collector made a reference to the court under section 18 of the Act which was transferred to the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division for hearing and disposal in accordance with law. Before the reference court, the respondent examined himself on oath as P.W.1. He however did not examine any other witness. The respondent produced before the reference court three Index II extracts at Exhibits 42, 43 and 44 in respect of three sale transactions. After considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the respondent, the learned Civil Judge held that the market value of the said land had not been properly determined by the Land Acquisition Officer. It that the market value of the acquired land was Rs.2,000/- per are. Accordingly, he ordered payment of compensation for the said land at the rate of Rs,2,000/- per are with interest at 12% per annum from 14th April 1988 to 19th April 1991 together with solatium at 30% of the market value of the acquired land. Aggrieved by the decision, the State has filed the present appeal.

4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the points that arise for my determination and my answers thereto are as follows:

(A) Whether the appellant proved that the market value determined by the Land Acquisition Officer was inadequate? ... No

(B) Whether the respondent proved that the market value of the acquired land was Rs.2,000/- per are on the date of the notification under section 4 of the Act? ... No

(C) Whether the judgment of the Lower Court needs interference? ... Yes

5. The respondent only examined himself and did not examine any witness much less any expert to prove valuation. The examination in chief was laconic and was over in one paragraph in one page. In the examination in chief, the respondent stated that the market value of the acquired land was about Rs.5,000/- per are and he was claiming compensation of Rs.3,000/- per are. The acquired land had non-agricultural potential. There were police station, taluka office, government hospital and high school in the village. The acquired land was 150 mts. away from the market and was situated near the State Highway Deogad-Nipani. Zilla Parishad road was 100 mts. away and railway station was 1 km. away from the acquired land. He further stated that he had produced Index II extracts in respect of the three transactions at Exhibits 42 to 44. And that was the end of the examination in chief. The respondent did not state anything about the lands which were the subject matter of sale transaction covered by Exhibits 42 to 44. He did not produce any plan showing location of the acquired land and the lands covered by Exhibits 42 to 44. He did not adduce any other evidence about the market value of the acquired land. In the cross examination, he denied the suggestion that the suit land was away from Deogad-Nipani. He further stated that there was no market in the village and the people had to go at far away places for marketing. He also denied that village Vaibhavwadi was a small village.

6. Though the respondent denied the suggestion that