1 (1)S.B.Civil Misc.Appeal No.2236/2007 (State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Heera) (2)S.B.Civil Misc.Appeal No.2237/2007 (State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Bhinya Ram) (3)S.B.Civil Misc.Appeal No.2238/2007 (State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Amlu, Faglu, Mangala, Bhagawana s/o Shri Anna, ½, Khinya s/o Jagalu ½) (4)S.B.Civil Misc.Appeal No.2239/2007 (State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Duda Ram, Deram Ram s/o Shri Dungra Ram, Daraga Wd./o Late Shri Dungara Ram, Gorkha, Kesa) (5)S.B.Civil Misc.Appeal No.2240/2007 (State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Mohanlal) Date of Judgment :: 21st January, 2008 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Mr. Chandra Shekhar, Additional Government Advocate. Mr. Vijay Purohit, for the respondent(s). .... These appeals are preferred to assail validity, propriety and correctness of the orders passed by learned Civil Judge (SD), Jalore deciding the reference made as per provisions of Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Learned Civil Judge by order impugned accepted the compensation as per award and included solatium @ 30%. The contention of learned Additional Government Advocate while challenging the order 2 impugned is that the compensation should have been determined at the rates fixed by the District Level Committee. I do not find any force in the contention advanced as the learned Civil Judge accepted the valuation of the land acquired as determined by the State Government itself and nothing beyond that. As a matter of fact learned Civil Judge did not accept valuation of the land as suggested by the respondent land owner. Learned Counsel for the appellants utterly failed to point out any reason to interfere with the order impugned. As such, these appeals are having no merit and, therefore, the same are dismissed. ( GOVIND MATHUR ),J. Kkm/ps.