JUDGMENT - A.D. MANE, J.:---First appeal No. 161 of 1983 is preferred by the State of Maharashtra, challenging the judgment and order dated 1-8-1982 passed by the learned Assistant Judge, Parbhani in Land Acquisition Reference No. 43 of 1980, inter alia on the ground that enhancement of compensation awarded by the Civil Court is not in accordance with law. Other companion first appeals, are filed by the claimants in same reference to seek further enhancement of the compensation for the land acquired, under the same notification. Therefore, these appeals are disposed of by the common judgment and order, since the questions of law and facts are identical. 2.Notification under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published in the Maharashtra Government Gazette dated 19-8-1976. Corrigenda to that notification was also issued and published in Government Gazette dated 16-1-1978. Notification under section 6 of the said Act was issued and published in the Government Gazette dated 16-11-1978. Under these notifications several lands from village Varanga Phata and other villages in Taluka Kalamnuri, in District Parbhani came to be acquired for the purpose of Kesapuri Right Bank Canal, Upper Penganga Project. 3.Special Land Acquisition Officer, by his award dated 31-3-1979 awarded compensation to the owners whose lands were acquired in the aforesaid notification by fixing the price of the land at the relevant time at Rs. 2,932/- per acre. It may be stated that the lands acquired of the claimants herein were both dry and irrigated, inasmuch as, they have facility of well water, as part of the land appears to have been cultivated for raising bagayat crops. 4.The claimants in companion first appeal preferred Land Acquisition Reference No. 43 of 1980. It is their claim that the market value of the acquired land at the relevant time was at Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 15,000/- per acre. They asserted that the acquired land is irrigated land and therefore, the compensation awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer was inadequate and was not based on proper market value at the relevant time. 5.The learned Assistant Judge, before whom the claimants adduced evidence in the form of sale deed, decided the claim of the claimants deferring to the market value assessed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer and fixed the market value at the rate of Rs. 3,165/- per acre. 5.The learned Assistant Judge, before whom the claimants adduced evidence in the form of sale deed, decided the claim of the claimants deferring to the market value assessed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer and fixed the market value at the rate of Rs. 3,165/- per acre. The learned Assistant Judge did not accept the sale instance, relied upon by the claimants, which is duly proved in the evidence of claimants witness Venkatrao (Exh. 25) to the effect that he had purchased 1 acre from one Ramrao for Rs. 10,000/- under the registered sale deed, copy of which is produced at Exhibit 17 in the companion Land Acquisition Reference No. 58 of 1980. The learned trial Judge did not accept these documents for want of agreement in writing prior to the date of sale. Keeping in view the dates of the notification and the date of sale deed, it has also been observed that there is every possibility to show excess amount of consideration in the sale deed dated 6-4-1977, with a view to use the document to get the compensation at an exorbitant rate. The learned trial Judge, however, relied upon the sale deed dated 17-5-1974 (Exh. 15) and also the sale deed dated 14-6-1974 (Exh. 24) of the lands situated in adjoining village to come to the conclusion that the market value at the relevant time should have been Rs. 4,000/- per acre. Therefore, the claimants were awarded enhanced compensation by fixing the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 4,000/- per acre. 6.Now in the appeal preferred by the State Government, it has been submitted that, the learned trial Judge has committed an error in awarding the compensation to the claimants. Shri Chillarge, learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that sale deed Exhibit 15 in which 3.25 acres of the land was sold for consideration of Rs. 14,000/-, does not represent the proper value of the land acquired. Similarly, it has been submitted that the other sale deed Exhibit 25, whereby individual share of 2 acres and 18 gunthas of the land came to be purchased with one third share in the well for Rs. 30,000/- will also not represent the proper sale price for fixation of the price at the relevant time. This sale deed pertains to the year 1979. 30,000/- will also not represent the proper sale price for fixation of the price at the relevant time. This sale deed pertains to the year 1979. 7.Shri Deshpande, learned Counsel for the claimants, on the other hand, submits that the claimants have adduced the evidence by way of sale instances which are duly proved and genuineness of which is not questioned in the cross examination of the claimants and their witnesses. Therefore, these sale instances, form basis for assessing the reasonable compensation for the lands acquired. Quite apart, Shri Deshpande learned Counsel for the claimants has also urged that the learned trial Judge has committed an error of law in rejecting the Sale Deed Exhibit 23, even though the sale deed is of post notification period. It has been submitted that even the learned trial Judge does not seem to have taken into account the nature of the land acquired, the 7/12 extracts, which are relied upon by the claimants clearly shows that there is well water facility for raising not only perennial crop but also the sugarcane and bananas and therefore, the price of dry land at the relevant time should not be taken as price for fixation of the price of the land, which has potentialities of raising bagayat crop. It is submitted that there should have been a proportionate increase in the market price of the land for potentialities of bagayat land, on the basis of market price of the dry land at the relevant time. In other words, it is submitted that the learned trial Judge should have given marginal increase to the market price between 1974 to 1976. In that event, it is submitted that the market price should have been fixed at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per acre. 8.In the first place, it is common knowledge that even in the same village, no two lands, command same market value. The lands abutting the main road or national highway command higher market value and as the location goes backward, market value of interior land would be less even for the same kind of land. It is a settled legal position that the lands possessed of only similar potentiality or the value with similar advantages offer comparable parity of the value. It is common knowledge that the lands in the village spread over the vast extent. It is a settled legal position that the lands possessed of only similar potentiality or the value with similar advantages offer comparable parity of the value. It is common knowledge that the lands in the village spread over the vast extent. So all the lands cannot and should not be classified as possessed of same market value. Burden is always on the claimant to prove the market value. 9.In case of (Basant Kumar v. Union of India)1, 1996(11) S.C.C. 542 , it has been held by the Apex Court : "What has to be determined under section 23(1) is the market value prevailing as on the date of notification published under section 4(1) but not what was claimed by the parties even pursuant to notice under section 10 or its reference under section 18 or grounds of appeal under section 54. ...... Compensation requires to be determined for the land acquired and not on the basis of the status of the person from whom the land was acquired." 10.It is also equally necessary to point out from the observations of the Apex Court in the judgment in case of (State of Uttar Pradesh v. Rajendra Singh)2, 1996(7) S.C.C. 347 , and to quote : "It is the duty of the Court to assess reasonable compensation. Burden is on the owner to prove the prevailing market value. On adduction of evidence by the parties, the acid test which the Court has to adopt is that the Court has to sit in the armchair of a prudent purchaser, eschew feats of imagination and consider whether a reasonable prudent purchaser in the open market would offer the same price, which the Court is intending to fix the market value in respect of the acquired land. Since it is a compulsory acquisition, it is but the solemn duty of the Court to assess reasonable compensation so as to allow the same to the owner of the land whose property has been acquired by compulsory acquisition and also to avoid needless burden on public exchequer ...." 11.Keeping in view the aforesaid principles, governing the assessment of reasonable compensation, we think, out of three sale instances, two sale instances at Exhibits 15 and 24 clearly show that at about the relevant time, the market price of the agricultural lands having potentialities of raising perineal crops was at Rs. 4,000/- per acre. 4,000/- per acre. The learned trial Judge was conscious of the fact that the prices of the lands are increasing year to year. He also observed that the lands in question which was under irrigation and the lands sold in question, though comparable, were having water facility. On going through the evidence of the witnesses, who have proved the sale instances, it does not appear that the lands covered under the sale instances having similar water facilities, as was available to the respondents-claimants. The lands under sale deed Exhibit 15 admeasuring 1 Hectare 61 Ares was purchased for Rs. 17,000/- on 14-6-1974 and the price if worked out, comes to Rs. 4,200/- per acre. Another sale instance dated 14-6-1994 (Exhibit 24) indicates that three acres and 16 gunthas was purchased for Rs. 14,000/- and price worked out comes to Rs. 4,516/- per acre. 12.One of the distinguishing features in the sale deed is that out of total average of 12 Acres and 10 gunthas, land to the extent of one third undivided share was purchased. Therefore, the price reflected by this sale deed might be less than what was the market price at the relevant time. Assuming that these two sale instances could be considered for assessing the reasonable compensation, in the given case, the periodical increase in the prices between 1974 to 1976 cannot be lost sight of. If we keep in view these aspects, we think, the market price of the lands having irrigation facilities ought to have been fixed at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- per acre. 13.In the view that we take, the First Appeal No. 161 of 1983 filed by the State Government is liable to be dismissed whereas the First Appeals Nos. 91 and 97 of 1984 and First Appeals Nos. 84, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229 and 230 all of 1983, filed by the claimants are required to be allowed. We, therefore, pass the following order. 14.First Appeal No. 161 of 1983 is dismissed. There shall however, be no order as to costs. First Appeals Nos. 84, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229 and 230 all of 1983 and 14, 91, 97, all of 1984 are allowed. The appellants/Claimants are entitled to get compensation at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- per acre. 14.First Appeal No. 161 of 1983 is dismissed. There shall however, be no order as to costs. First Appeals Nos. 84, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229 and 230 all of 1983 and 14, 91, 97, all of 1984 are allowed. The appellants/Claimants are entitled to get compensation at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- per acre. Accordingly, we direct the State Government to pay to the Claimants the difference in the amount of compensation, on the basis that the market price of the acquired land at the relevant time was Rs. 5,000/- per acre, together with solatium on basis that the price of the land at the relevant time was Rs. 5,000/ together with interest. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. Order accordingly.