JUDGMENT - DESHMUKH B.N., J.:—This first appeal, arising out of land acquisition proceedings, involves an interesting question of law. 2. The land of the claimant was acquired for the construction of the rest house. The Land Acquisition Officer granted compensation to the extent of Rs. 1,15,000/- to the claimant. As the claimant was dissatisfied by the compensation granted, the matter was considered in Land Acquisition Reference No. 8 of 1980 by the learned Additional District Judge. 3. In reference, the learned Judge granted compensation for the acquired portion at the rate of Rs. 4 per sq.ft. Thus, the compensation was enhanced by Rs. 1,44,000 for the acquired area. 4. However, the matter does not rest there. The claimant had made a claim in the reference for the portion, according to him, encroached by the Government and belonging to the claimant. The learned Judge found that the Government has encroached the land of the claimant to the extent of 25,179 sq.ft. and awarded compensation at the same rate of Rs. 4 per sq. ft. for the encroached portion of the land. The compensation granted for the encroached portion was to the extent of Rs. 1,00,716. Further, this amount of enhanced compensation for the encroached portion was also awarded solatium at the rate of 15 per cent and the interest at the rate of 4 per cent per annum. 5. This first appeal is filed by the State challenging the decision given in reference awarding enhanced compensation. 6. At the same time, cross-objections are filed for claiming compensation at the higher rate than Rs. 4 per sq. ft. The Award of interest at the rate of 4 per cent per annum is also challenged. 7. Shri Bhapkar, learned A.G.P., for the State, contended that the Land Acquisition Officer was justified in granting compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,15,000. There was no necessity to enhance the compensation by granting the rate of Rs. 4 per sq. ft. 8. Apart from this, Shri Bhapkar further contended that the learned Judge had no jurisdiction in a reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act to Award compensation for the encroached portion. His further contention is that, as per the scheme of the Land Acquisition Act, scope of reference will have to be considered in the light of the provisions of sections 18 and 23 of the Act. His further contention is that, as per the scheme of the Land Acquisition Act, scope of reference will have to be considered in the light of the provisions of sections 18 and 23 of the Act. The learned Judge has, therefore, exceeded his jurisdiction in recording a finding regarding the encroachment and further in granting compensation for the encroached portion. 9. Shri Kanade, however, contended that the case of the claimant is not properly appreciated. In fact, the compensation was demanded not regarding the encroached portion, but of the land which was utilised by the Government for the public purpose. 10. The contention of Shri Kanade in this connection cannot be accepted. If we consider the evidence on record, there is no doubt that the claimant was demanding compensation of encroached portion, as he has led evidence to that effect; apart from the fact that an issue came to be famed by the learned Judge and compensation is granted for the encroached portion. 11. Section 18 of the Act provides for making of a reference to the Court. In sub-section (1) of the said section, it is provided that any person interested, who has not accepted the Award or the amendment thereof, may by written application to the Collector require that the matter be referred by the Collector for the determination of the Court, where his objection is to the measurement of the land, the amount of the compensation, the persons to whom it is payable or the apportionment of the compensation amongst the persons interested. The matters to be dealt with in reference are squarely enumerated in the section itself. What is required to be determined by the Court in a reference under section 18 is: whether the objection of the claimant for the measurement of the land is proper; whether the amount of compensation to the persons to whom it is payable is arrived at properly; and whether the apportionment of the compensation amongst the persons interested is done properly. Thus, the scope of reference is limited to the extent of objections regarding measurement of the land, the amount of the compensation and the apportionment. 12. In this connection, we may also mention the provisions of section 23 of the said Act. Thus, the scope of reference is limited to the extent of objections regarding measurement of the land, the amount of the compensation and the apportionment. 12. In this connection, we may also mention the provisions of section 23 of the said Act. Sub-section (1) of section 23 provides: "(1) In determining the amount of compensation to be awarded for land acquired under this Act, the Court shall take into consideration -" The scheme regarding grant of compensation, therefore, relates to the land acquired and the factors which are to be taken into consideration for determination by the Court naturally relate to the Award of compensation for the land acquired. 13. The compensation or damages for the encroached portion cannot form part of the reference and cannot be dealt with at all. 14. The learned Judge has, therefore, not appreciated the scope of the Court in reference under section 18 of the Act correctly. We have, therefore, no doubt that the learned Judge has committed an error of jurisdiction in recording a finding regarding the encroachment and further exceeded his jurisdiction in granting compensation for the encroached portion also. 15. The amount of compensation awarded for encroached portion is required to be deleted from the Award passed by the learned Judge. 16. In the cross objections, inadequacy of compensation is challenged. The learned Judge has granted compensation at the rate of Rs. 4 per sq. ft. for the acquired portion. There are sale instances on record. Exhibit 38 relates to the year 1975 in respect of a plot of 20 x 27 sq. ft. situated at Subhash Road and the same was sold for Rs. 12,000. There is another sale instance relating to the plot situated on Jalna Road. Though the original sale deed was not produced as misplaced, P.W. 3 Mohomed Bashiruddin was examined, who had purchased the suit plot in March 1980 at the rate between Rs. 11 and Rs. 12 per sq. ft. As this plot was purchased in public auction, the learned Judge thought it fit not to place any reliance on this sale instance. 17. It is true that the sale instance, Exh. 38, though of 1975, relates to plot of land situated on Subhash Road, which is about 4 furlongs from the acquired land. From the evidence also, it can be gathered that sale instance, Exh. 3.8, relates to a plot of busy locality. 17. It is true that the sale instance, Exh. 38, though of 1975, relates to plot of land situated on Subhash Road, which is about 4 furlongs from the acquired land. From the evidence also, it can be gathered that sale instance, Exh. 3.8, relates to a plot of busy locality. But, at the same, we cannot forget that the, present land was acquired for the construction of Rest House and it is also in the developed area and on Beed-Nagar Road surrounded by the other offices and hotels also. In view of this, it is very difficult to accept that the market price of the acquired land cannot be more than Rs. 4 per sq. ft. 18. Having regard to evidence adduced, we are of opinion that the ends of justice will be met if the claimant is awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 6 per sq. ft. 19. The amount of interest granted is at the rate of 4 per cent per annum. In the light of the provisions of the Act in this regard, we are unable to appreciate how the interest can be awarded at the rate of 4 per cent per annum only. The claimant is, therefore, entitled to the rate of interest on the entire amount at the rate of 6 per cent per annum. 20. In the above view of the matter, first appeal is partly allowed. The claimant's claim for compensation to the extent of encroached portion of the land is deleted, as the said claim cannot be entertained under section 18 of the Act. However, the compensation granted by the learned Judge is modified and the claimant is held entitled to receive the compensation at the rate of Rs. 6 per sq. ft. with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum on the entire amount since January 1977 until realisation. The cross objections are also partly allowed. Decree accordingly. No order as to costs. Appeal partly allowed. -----