( 1 ) THIS appeal, which is instituted under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 read with section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is directed against judgment and award dated 9/09/1993 rendered by the learned Assistant Judge, Porbandar,in Land Acqisition Reference Case No. 64/88.

( 2 ) SURVEY No. 297/3 admeasuring 1 Hectare 56 Are 82 sq. mt. of village Miti was placed under acquisition pursuant to publication of notification on September 27, 1994 which was issued under section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ("the Act" for short) for public purpose of Amipur Irrigation Scheme. The objections raised by the respondents were considered by the Land Acquisition Officer and a report under section 5a (2) of the Act was forwarded to the State Government. On consideration of the said report, State Government was satisfied that survey No. 297/3 of village Miti was needed for public purpose of Amipur Irrigation Scheme. Accordingly, declaration under section 6 of the Act was also published in Government Gazette. Thereafter the respondents were served with notices under section 9 of the Act for determination of compensation. The Land Acquisition Officer by his award offered compensation to the respondents at the rate of Rs. 90. 00 per Are. The respondents were of the opinion that the offer of compensation made by the Land Acquisition Officer was inadequate. Therefore, they made applications in writing requiring the Land Acquisition Officer to refer the matter to the Court for determination of compensation. Accordingly, reference was made to the District Court, Junagadh, which was numbered as Land Reference Case No. 64/88. In the reference application, the respondent pleaded that having regard to fertility of the land acquired as well as the prevailing price of the agricultural lands situated nearby, they were entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs. 800. 00 per Are. The reference application was contested by the present appellants vide written statement Exh. 12. In the reply, it was pleaded by the appellants that the market price was properly determined by the Land Acquisition Officer and as compensation offered to the claimants was just and adequate, reference application should be dismissed. Upon rival assertions of the parties, necessary issues for determination were raised by the reference court. In order to substantiate the claim advanced in the reference application, the claimants had examined Mer Mulu Khimanand at Exh. 24. The respondents also produced sale deeds at Exhs. 20, 21 and 22. It may be stated that neither oral nor documentary evidence was produced by the present appellants. On consideration of evidence led by the claimants, the reference court held that sale deed Exh. 20 indicated that the price of land of village Miti was Rs. 120. 00 per Are; whereas other sale deeds indicated that the price of lands situated in the nearby villages was Rs. 187. 50 ps. per Are at the relevant time. The sale instances were not reliable, as the parties were proven to fix the market value less than the actual prevailing market price in order to avoid payment of stamp duty. Relying on the evidence led by the claimants, the reference Court held that the net income from the sale of crops was Rs. 1600. 00 per Are and that it was proper to apply multiplier of 12. 5 to the facts of the case. The reference court further held that the market value of the land acquired would be Rs. 1250. 00 per Are, but as the claimants have tendency to exaggerate income derived from the sale of crops, the market value of the land acquired should be assessed at Rs. 300/- per Are. In the ultimate decision, the reference Court has held that the claimants are entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs. 300. 00 per Are, by the impugned award giving rise to present appeal.

( 3 ) MR. M. R. Raval, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer was fair as well as adequ