JUDGMENT - A.D. MANE, J.:---This first appeal is directed on behalf of the claimant against the order dated April 5, 1983 passed by the learned Assistant Judge, Parbhani, in Land Reference Case No. 34 of 1978. 2. The appellant-claimant owns land bearing Survey Nos. 192/1,3,6,10 and Survey No. 200 in all admeasuring 5 Hectares 24 Acres situated in village Makani, Taluka Gangakhed, District Parbhani. The said land was acquired by the respondent-State Government for the purpose of submergence under Masoli project. Notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on March 4, 1974 whereas, the notification under section 6 of the Act was published on November 7, 1974. It appears that the possession of the land acquired was taken before the award could be passed. The Special Land Acquisition Officer by his award dated March 13, 1976 valued the land at the rate of Rs. 300/- per Are and granted compensation of Rs. 18,305.50 including solatium at the rate of 15% amounting to Rs. 2,395.50 together with a sum of Rs. 250/- being value of two mango trees. The appellant-claimant did not satisfy with the amount of compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer and, therefore, at his instance, reference was made to the District Court. 3. In support of the reference, the claimant adduced oral and documentary evidence. The oral evidence, however, consists of his own testimony at Exhibit 15. The documentary evidence comprises certified copies of statements of various witnesses and the sale instances in another Land reference Case No. 48 of 1978. The documents have been read in evidence as Exhibits with consent of the respondent State. The claimant has claimed enhanced compensation for Jirayat land at Rs. 5,000/- per Acre, whereas for bagayat land at Rs. 7,000/- per Arcre. The evidence furnished by various sale instances relied on by him, can be catalogued as below : Sr. Name of the Date of Sale Area Consideration No. witness Deed/Exh. No. Exhibit No. 1. Uttam (Ex. 9) 11.3.75 (Ex. 26) 21 Gunthas Rs. 5000/- 2. Govindrao (Ex. 21) 23.6.67 (Ex. 28) 35 Gunthas Rs. 4000/- 3. Sugriv (Ex. 22) 18.3.74 (Ex. - ) 1A 4 G. Rs. 4000/- 4. Kundlik (Ex. 23) 17.5.74 (Ex. 25) 31 Gunthas Rs. 4000/- 5. Dattatraya (Ex. 24) 25.6.73 (Ex. 27) 2A 1. G. Rs. No. Exhibit No. 1. Uttam (Ex. 9) 11.3.75 (Ex. 26) 21 Gunthas Rs. 5000/- 2. Govindrao (Ex. 21) 23.6.67 (Ex. 28) 35 Gunthas Rs. 4000/- 3. Sugriv (Ex. 22) 18.3.74 (Ex. - ) 1A 4 G. Rs. 4000/- 4. Kundlik (Ex. 23) 17.5.74 (Ex. 25) 31 Gunthas Rs. 4000/- 5. Dattatraya (Ex. 24) 25.6.73 (Ex. 27) 2A 1. G. Rs. 8000/- It may be stated that the claimant has also relied on certified copy of the deposition of witness Manohar (Ex. 29) to disclose that he has purchased 3 Acres of land from one Namdeo and Laxman for Rs. 15,000/- in the month of January, 1976. He has, however, not produced the certified copy of sale deed, and therefore, the evidence of the witness will have to be excluded from consideration. 4. The learned Assistant Judge while dealing with the aforesaid sale instances, upon which the reliance is placed by the claimant, in the first instance, discarded the oral testimonies of the witnesses in support of these sale instances for one reason or the another. But at the subsequent stage, he has taken into account these various sale instances to come to an average value of the land in the vicinity during the relevant period for determining the compensation. The value of the land, according to him, was not less than Rs. 95/- per Are during the years 1967 to 1975. Taking Rs. 95/- as the basis representing the market price of the land similarly situated in the village, the learned Assistant Judge assessed the compensation accordingly. 5. On calculation, it was found that the total compensation inclusive of solatium of 15% comes to Rs. 57,534.50 Ps. The claimant has already received compensation of Rs. 18,365.50 prior to the date of award as evident by statement in award Exhibit 40. Therefore, the claimant was held to be entitled to a sum of Rs. 39,169/- inclusive of solatium after excluding the amount already paid, as additional compensation. The learned Assistant Judge, however, was of the view that since the claimant has restricted his claim only to a sum of Rs. 34,500/- with solatium thereon, the claimant was not entitled to more than that sum. The award directing the respondent-State to deposit in Court a sum of Rs. 34,500/- inclusive of solatium with interest @ 4% with effect from March 13, 1976, was accordingly passed. 6. 34,500/- with solatium thereon, the claimant was not entitled to more than that sum. The award directing the respondent-State to deposit in Court a sum of Rs. 34,500/- inclusive of solatium with interest @ 4% with effect from March 13, 1976, was accordingly passed. 6. Shri Mundhe, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant has urged that there are two apparent infirmities in the conclusion drawn by the learned Assistant Judge. In the first place, the learned Assistant Judge was not justified in discarding the oral version of various witnesses supporting the sale instances, and relying the very sale instances for finding out average market price of land similarly situated. Secondly, the learned Assistant Judge has also fallen into an error in taking into account that the claimant has restricted his claim only to a sum of Rs. 30,000 as according to him, the claimant had submitted in his reference application that in addition to the compensation on the basis of market value of the land acquired, he restricts his claim for further entitled damage to Rs. 30,000/-. These infirmities, it has been argued, has resulted into mis-carriage of justice and, therefore, the impugned order requires to be set right. 7. On the other hand, Smt. Rasal, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the State, urged that the learned Assistant Judge, who dis-believed the material in support of the sale instances, was not justified in taking into account the very piece of evidence to arrive at a conclusion that the market price of the land acquired was Rs. 95/- per Are. In this context, a great emphasis has been laid on the instances referred to in the award Exhibit 40 passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, in submitting that the price of the land, at the relevant time, would not be more than Rs. 30/- per Acre. Therefore, it has been submitted that the learned Assistant Judge was also wrong in granting enhanced compensation. 8. At the outset it may be stated that on going through the record of the case we find that the learned Assistant Judge seems to have committed an error apparent on face of record that the cliament has restricted his claim to a sum of Rs. 30,000/-. In fact the claimant, in addition to his claim of compensation, at the rate of Rs. 5000/- per acre for dry land and Rs. 30,000/-. In fact the claimant, in addition to his claim of compensation, at the rate of Rs. 5000/- per acre for dry land and Rs. 7,000/- for bagayat land, has claimed damages on the basis of injuries affected and the said claim was restricted to Rs. 30,000/-. This aspect of the case, we find, has been escaped notice of by the learned Assistant Judge. 9. There is also merit in the submission of Shri Mundhe, the learned Counsel for the appellant that the learned Assistant Judge has not properly appreciated the evidence in the form of sale instances, which has been relied by the claimant in support of his claim for assessing the correct market value of the land acquired. We may consider two of the sale instances referred to above to show that, how the learned Assistant Judge, in the first place, was not justified in discarding the evidence in support of those two sale instances. The first sale instance is of Pundlik Exhibit 23. The certified copy of the sale deed Exhibit 25 corroborates his testimony that he purchased 31 gunthas of land for Rs. 3,500/- and he sold the same to one Yeshwant for Rs. 4,000 under sale deed dated May 17, 1974. It may be stated that the recitals in the sale deed show that the land was sold alongwith four annas share in the two Mango trees and four annas share in the well but no separate consideration was paid in that behalf as per the sale deed. Witness Pundlik, in his cross examination, while supporting the sale deed, however, denied that he had sold his four annas share in the well. That denial is considered as a circumstance to dis-card his entire testimony. In our opinion, that cannot be a reasonable justification to reject the sale instance which is otherwise proved in the evidence of the witness when there is no challenge to its genuineness. It is necessary to emphasise that this sale instance is very proximate to the time of the notification issued under section 4 of the Act in the instant case. 10. The other witness is Dattatrya (Exhibit 24). This witness corroborates the certified copy of sale deed (Exhibit 27). His evidence shows that he sold 2 Acres and 1 Guntha land at Undegaon in favour of one Narayanrao and his brother Keshav for a sum of Rs. 10. The other witness is Dattatrya (Exhibit 24). This witness corroborates the certified copy of sale deed (Exhibit 27). His evidence shows that he sold 2 Acres and 1 Guntha land at Undegaon in favour of one Narayanrao and his brother Keshav for a sum of Rs. 8,000/- under the sale deed Exhibit 27. In cross-examination, he has, however, stated that the land at Makani is superior than the land covered under Exhibit 27. But at the same time, he was not able to tell as to which survey number in the village Makani is superior when compared to other survey numbers in the same village. It was sought to be suggested to this witness, that the land which he has sold is inferior to the land acquired. That part of version, in the opinion of the learned Assistant Judge, makes it difficult to rely on his entire testimony. Rejection of sale instance (Exhibit 27), in our opinion, does not appear to be correct, especially when no challenge was also made to this sale instance as either collusive or fraudulent. In other words, it cannot be said that the price shown in the sale deed does not represent the market value of the land at the time when it was sold on June 25, 1973. 11. Smt. Rasal, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent, however, tried to contend that no reliance can be placed either on sale deeds Exhibit 25 or Exhibit 27, mainly, on the ground that the lands covered under these sale deeds are of the different villages than the village where the acquired lands are situated. On going through the sale deeds, the prominent circumstance which cannot escape notice in this regard is that these lands are also situated on the bank of the river. It is not in dispute that the land acquired is known as Gangakath and is situated at the bank of the river. That is a comparable factor. Therefore, it is not possible to accept the contention of the learned Assistant Government Pleader that these sale instances cannot be relied upon merely because the lands covered under them situated in different villages. It is not in dispute that the village Wadawana and Undegaon are adjoining to village Makani. 12. Keeping in view the above aspect, regard may be had to another sale instance deposed to by witness Sugriv (Exhibit 22). It is not in dispute that the village Wadawana and Undegaon are adjoining to village Makani. 12. Keeping in view the above aspect, regard may be had to another sale instance deposed to by witness Sugriv (Exhibit 22). He has stated that he has purchased 1 Acre 4 Gunthas for Rs. 4,000/- in the month of March, 1974 at village Dongar-Jawala. The witness has, however, added that it was a bagayat land, but that fact is contrary to the recitals in the sale deed. Therefore, the learned Assistant Judge discarded his testimony. In our opinion, the testimony of witness Sugriv also cannot be discarded on that ground alone because that part of his version can be ignored as mere exaggeration. 13. The two sale instances referred to above and the evidence of witness Sugriv would sufficiently prove that the average price of the land similarly situated in or about village Makani is at Rs. 4,000/- per Are. The learned Assistant Judge, while keeping the reliance on the sale instances to arrive at the average price of the lands in the vicinity has given much importance to the revenue assessment. By taking into account the range of revenue assessment of various lands covered under the sale deeds, the learned Assistant Judge found that the land revenue of different qualities of lands was between 1.93 Ps. to 2.86 Ps. per hectare and hence the land value could not be less than Rs. 95/- per Acre during 1967 to 1975. The valuation on basis of land revenue will have to be disapproved because there is absolutely no evidence that there has been revision of survey for fixing the land revenue recently in respect of the various lands. The sale instances undoubtedly show that the price of the land capable of raising kharif crop was not less than Rs. 4,000/- per Acre at the relevant time. In our opinion, therefore, Rs. 4,000/- per Acre would be the appropriate value of the land acquired. 14. In this context, it is also necessary to point out that it is common experience that the average market price of the Jirayat land is above Rs. 4,000/-. We have, therefore, no hesitation to assess the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 4,000/- per Acre, which comes to Rs. 10,000/- per hectare. 14. In this context, it is also necessary to point out that it is common experience that the average market price of the Jirayat land is above Rs. 4,000/-. We have, therefore, no hesitation to assess the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 4,000/- per Acre, which comes to Rs. 10,000/- per hectare. In the view that we take, there is no merit in the contention of Smt. Rasal, learned Asstt. Government Pleader for the respondent that the market value of the land acquired should have been assessed on the basis of sale instances relied upon by the Land Acquisition Officer. As a matter of fact, there is absolutely no evidence which the respondent could adduce before the learned Assistant Judge to show that the market price arrived at by the Land Acquisition Officer was a correct market price on the relevant date. 15. Smt. Pratibha Rasal, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the State further argued that the appellant is not at all entitled for enhanced compensation for two fold reasons. Firstly, that in a reference application, nowhere the claimaint has mentioned the total amount of compensation which he was entitled to receive and has paid the Court fee thereon. Secondly, the claimant has restricted his claim in the present appeal to a sum of Rs. 35,930/- and has paid Court fee of Rs.. 2080/-, therefore, the appellant will also not be entitled for any enhanced compensation in appeal. On the other hand, Shri Mundhe, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, invited our attention to a case reported in A.I.R. 1943 Mad. 337 (In re Zamindar of Ettayapuram)1, to show that a claimant has to do under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act claiming a reference to the Court is to state in his application that he objects to the amount of compensation awarded and state in the application which of the four heads of objections detailed in sub-section (1) the applicant proposes to rely upon. It is, therefore, not incumbent on the applicant to state the rate at which he claims compensation. The maximum and the minimum which can be awarded by the Court are clearly indicated in section 25(1) of the Act and without particulars of claim it is open to the Court to award his compensation or dismiss his application. It is, therefore, not incumbent on the applicant to state the rate at which he claims compensation. The maximum and the minimum which can be awarded by the Court are clearly indicated in section 25(1) of the Act and without particulars of claim it is open to the Court to award his compensation or dismiss his application. The submission of Shri Mundhe, learned Counsel for the appellant, has merit. It is fairly conceded by the learned Assistant Government Pleader that nowhere in the Land Acquisition Act any provision is made as a condition precedent to pay the Court fee on the reference application. Further more, section 5 of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959, though requires Court fee to be paid on the documents filed in the Court or in public offices, section 8 of the said Act empowers the Court to hold an enquiry as to the valuation of the claims and direct payment of deficit Court fee. In this context, regard may be had to provisions of section 149 of Code of Civil Procedure Code. Under section 149 of Civil Procedure Code, the Court has got the powers to allow the applicant to pay the deficit Court fee and upon such payment, the document, in respect of which such fee payable, shall have the same force and effect as if such fee had been paid in the first instance. In these circumstances, it is clear that the learned Assistant Judge was incorrect in granting sum of Rs. 30,000/- instead of Rs. 39,169/- as enhanced compensation in the first instance, as we have observed that the learned Assistant Judge has wrongly considered that the claimant has restricted his claim to a sum of Rs. 30,000/- only. Since we find that the market value of the acquired land was Rs. 10,000/- per hectare, the claimant would be entitled to enhanced compensation which can be calculated as under : The total acerage of the land acquired is 5 Hectares 24 Ares. Therefore, the value of the acquired land comes to Rs. 10,000 x 5.24 = Rs. 52,400/-. 16. Shri Mundhe, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, further urged that the appellant is entitled to the benefits under the amended section 23(2) and section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. Therefore, the value of the acquired land comes to Rs. 10,000 x 5.24 = Rs. 52,400/-. 16. Shri Mundhe, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, further urged that the appellant is entitled to the benefits under the amended section 23(2) and section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. Thereafter, two fold question arises, firstly, whether amended section 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act providing for higher solatium at 30% will apply to the award made by the learned Judge of the Court below and secondly, whether amended section 28 of the Act providing for higher rate of interest at the rate of 9% P.A. for first year from the date of possession and 15% P.A. on the expiry of one year thereafter, will also apply to the award made by the learned Judge of the Court below. There is no dispute that the award made by the learned Judge of the Court below is dated April 5,1983. In case of (Union of India v. Filip Tiago De Gama)2, (1990)1 S.C.C. 277 the Supreme Court has observed that the amended section 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act applies to the award made by the Collector or the Court between April 30, 1982 and September 24, 1984 in acquisition proceedings commenced prior to the said dates, in view of the transitional provisions of section 30(2) of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 68 of 1984. Therefore, higher solatium can be granted in the instant case. Moreover, the objective words used in section 18(a) of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 68 of 1984 are similar to those that are used in section 30(2) of the said Act. Applying the same interpretation to section 18(a) of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 68 of 1984, section 28 providing higher rate of interest can also be applied to the instant case and, therefore, the appellant is entitled to the benefits under the amended sections 23(2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. In this context, it may be pointed out that the Division Bench of this Court has also taken similar view in case of (Shakuntalabai v. State of Maharashtra)3, A.I.R. 1986 Bom. 308 17. In the view that we take, the total amount of compensation, which the appellant is entitled to receive, would come to Rs. 52,400 + 15,720 = Rs. 68,120/-. 308 17. In the view that we take, the total amount of compensation, which the appellant is entitled to receive, would come to Rs. 52,400 + 15,720 = Rs. 68,120/-. As regards the interest, we find difficulty in calculating the same for want of material dates on record and the amounts paid and/or deposited in pursuance of the award passed by the Court below as well as the Land Acquisition Officer. 20. In result, we allow the appeal and direct the respondent State to pay to the appellant an amount of difference between the total amount of compensation for the land acquired as aforesaid and the amount already paid to the appellant with proportionate costs, subject, however, to the determination of interest at the higher rate on excess sum under the amended section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. The appellant is directed to pay deficit Court fee in the reference Court as well as in this Court in the appeal within a period of two months from today. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed. *****