JUDGMENT- R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR, J.:---Heard the learned Advocates for respective parties. 2. A common question of law and facts arises in all these appeals therefore, they were heard together and are being disposed by this common judgment. The State being aggrieved by the common award passed in Land Acquisition Reference Nos. 317/78, 325/78, 320/78, 322/78 and 324/78 are being challenged in these First Appeal Nos. 121/80, 124/80, 125/80, 126/80 and 652/81 respectively. The challenge to the award is mainly on the ground that the Reference Court has granted enhancement of the compensation without there being sufficient evidence placed on record by the respondent-claimants to justify such enhancement. According to the appellants, there is no sufficient material on record to support claim of the respondents for enhancement of the compensation over and above grant by the Land Acquisition Officer to the respondents in respect of their respective plots, which were acquired under the notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 dated 21st July, 1973. The land acquired is from villages Lamthana and Chincholi-Jogan, which are stated to be situated at a distance of about one mile away from each other and they are situated in Ausa Taluka. The land was acquired by the Government for the construction of Chincholi-Jogan Tank and as such included different pieces of land belonging to the respondents-claimants herein. All the respondents after receiving the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer under protest, preferred references under section 18 of the said Act for enhancement of compensation. On reference of the said cases to the Reference Court, all the above cases alongwith some more cases were taken up together for hearing and common evidence was recorded in all the said cases wherein the common award dated 31st July, 1979 was passed, which is under challenge. In all these cases, the Land Acquisition Officer had awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 1800/- per acre of the Bagayat land and Rs. 1500/- per acre of dry land, whereas the Reference Court has enhanced the same to Rs. 5000/- per acre of the Bagayat land and Rs. 3000/- per acre of the dry land. 3. In all these cases, the Land Acquisition Officer had awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 1800/- per acre of the Bagayat land and Rs. 1500/- per acre of dry land, whereas the Reference Court has enhanced the same to Rs. 5000/- per acre of the Bagayat land and Rs. 3000/- per acre of the dry land. 3. Upon hearing the learned Assistant Government Pleader for appellant and the Advocate for respondents and on perusal of the records, the point which arises for consideration is whether the Reference Court on the basis of the material on record, was justified in granting enhancement of compensation from Rs. 1800/- to Rs. 5000/- per acre in case of Bagayat land and from Rs. 1500/- to Rs. 3000/- per acre in case of dry land. 4. The perusal of record disclose that all the respondents had examined themselves in support of their case and had produced the documents in the nature of 7/12 extract and some other documents showing sale of Jaggery manufactured from the sugarcane grown in the acquired land. In addition, the respondents in Land Acquisition Reference No. 317/78 had produced a sale deed dated 30th March, 1972 in relation to plot of land purchased by him from its erstwhile owners. Besides, the parties had also produced some other documents in the form of awards in some other cases apart from one more sale deed dated 16th February, 1974. The Reference Court has rejected the said sale deed dated 16th February 1974 as well as the awards in other Land Acquisition Cases and relying upon the sale deed dated 30th March, 1972, enhanced the compensation as stated above. In other words, the sole basis for enhancement of the compensation, has been the sale deed dated 30-3-72. 5. According to the Government Advocate, the Reference Court has not properly analysed the evidence on record and has clearly erred in enhancing the compensation solely on the basis of the sale deed dated 30-3-72, in the absence of cogent evidence regarding the comparability between the land acquired and the land which was subject matter of the said sale deed. 5. According to the Government Advocate, the Reference Court has not properly analysed the evidence on record and has clearly erred in enhancing the compensation solely on the basis of the sale deed dated 30-3-72, in the absence of cogent evidence regarding the comparability between the land acquired and the land which was subject matter of the said sale deed. On the other hand, the learned Advocate for respondents has submitted that the Reference Court has not only referred to the said sale deed but has taken into consideration the oral testimony of the respondents, the other documentary evidence in the form of 7/12 extracts as well as sale receipts of Jaggery etc. and on overall analysis of the entire evidence, the Reference Court has rightly enhanced the compensation. He further submitted that there was no challenge thrown to the sale deed dated 30-3-72 which clearly discloses the value of land to be Rs. 5,000/- per acre. He also submitted that the acquired land was subject to revenue assessment at the rate of Re. 1/- per acre so also the land which was purchased by sale deed after 30-3-72, was subject to the revenue assessment of Re. 1/- per acre. Considering the fact that the land acquired and the land which was purchased, are situated adjacent to each other and the revenue assessment of both lands being same, no fault can be found with the Reference Court in placing reliance upon sale deed for fixing compensation for the acquired land in terms of the consideration passed under the said sale deed. 6. The perusal of the impugned award by the Reference Court discloses that the respondents were not able to produce any documentary evidence regarding their annual income from the acquired land. There is in fact clear finding to that effect by the Reference Court and it was clearly borne out from the record. Perusal of the testimony of the claimants and documents produced on record does not disclose any information regarding the annual income of the respondents from the acquired land. However, the 7/12 extract undoubtedly discloses the nature of the land and the fact that the land acquired was used for cultivation and in some cases it was double crop land as also the revenue assessment. However, the 7/12 extract undoubtedly discloses the nature of the land and the fact that the land acquired was used for cultivation and in some cases it was double crop land as also the revenue assessment. However, the said document is not sufficient to disclose the annual income of the occupants of the land as the extract though discloses the total yield per year for every year, it does not disclose the expenditure and investment incurred for getting the said yield for the particular year. Thus it is clear that there is no evidence produced by the respondents on record as regards the annual income that was received by them from the acquired land. 7. As regards other evidence on record, the Reference Court has rejected the documentary evidence in the form of sale deed dated 16th February, 1974 and the awards in other land acquisition cases. The sale deed dated 16th February, 1974 has been rejected as the same was executed much after the date of issuance of the Notification under section 4 under the said Act and therefore, no fault can be found with the said finding. As regards the awards in other land acquisition cases, no grievance can be made as those awards by themselves cannot form the basis for determination of compensation to be awarded to the land acquired in the case in hand in the absence of any evidence regarding the plot of land which was acquired under those awards and the comparison thereof with the land in question. No doubt there is no such evidence on record and therefore, for whatever reason the Reference Court might have refused to rely upon the said awards, the fault can be found with the decision in that regard. 8. Lastly what remains is the sale deed dated 30th March, 1972 and that appears to be the star document on which the respondent claimants are heavily relying upon to justify the enhancement of compensation granted by the Reference Court. Indeed the Reference Court though has referred the various other documents like 7/12 extracts, sale receipts of Jaggery and oral testimony of the parties, as rightly submitted by the learned Government Advocate, the enhancement has been mainly granted on the basis of the rate of land disclosed in the said sale deed dated 30th March, 1972. Indeed the Reference Court though has referred the various other documents like 7/12 extracts, sale receipts of Jaggery and oral testimony of the parties, as rightly submitted by the learned Government Advocate, the enhancement has been mainly granted on the basis of the rate of land disclosed in the said sale deed dated 30th March, 1972. The Reference Court in that regard has arrived at a finding that the purchaser of the land who is respondent in First Appeal No. 121/80 i.e. Reference No. 317/78, has duly proved the execution of the sale deed on being examined by P.W. 1 and he has deposed that the acquired land was more fertile as compared to the land purchased by him and that according to him, the market price of the land situated at Lamthana was from Rs. 5000/- to Rs. 7000/- per acre on the date of notification and that he purchased the land at the prevailing market prices. From the said testimony of the respondent No. 1, the Reference Court has concluded that the respondents had purchased the said land at the rate of Rs. 5000/- per acre about 14 months prior to the publication of the notification and the land is similar as regards the land revenue assessment of the acquired land and it seems that the land revenue was Re. 1/- per acre of the land purchased by the respondent. The Reference Court has further arrived at a finding that the sale deed being of genuine sale, the same cannot be discarded. 9. The Reference Court further, though has not relied upon the sale deed dated 16th February, 1974, for the purpose of fixation of compensation has certainly made reference of it to arrive at a finding that the sale deed being of the year 1974 disclosing the consideration of Rs. 40,000/- per acre for the area of 9 acres of land, does disclose increase in prices of land in the area and therefore, the Reference Court has concluded that the Bagayat land in the area must be valued at Rs. 5000/- whereas the dry land at the rate of Rs. 3500/- per acre. 10. 40,000/- per acre for the area of 9 acres of land, does disclose increase in prices of land in the area and therefore, the Reference Court has concluded that the Bagayat land in the area must be valued at Rs. 5000/- whereas the dry land at the rate of Rs. 3500/- per acre. 10. There can be no doubt that the testimony of P.W. 1 read with the copy of sale deed produced on record, does establish that the respondent had purchased the area of 4 acres of land on 30th March, 1972, and sale deed disclosed consideration of Rs. 20,000/- for the said transaction. The evidence on record also disclosed that the revenue assessment of the acquired land was ranging between Rs. 50 ps to Re. 1/-. However, there is no evidence placed on record as regards the nature of land which was the subject matter of sale and its comparison with the nature of the land acquired, regarding the potential value of the acquired land having regard to the location and surrounding in comparison with that which was subject matter of the sale as also similarity between two lands and the exact distance between the land acquired and the land purchased. Undisputedly, apart from the respondent-claimants, no other independent person was examined to establish the claim for enhancement. There is absolutely no evidence on record regarding prevailing market value of the land in the locality in the year 1972 when the sale deed was stated to have been executed by the respondents. It is not mere statement on oath by the claimant that the two lands are similar that is sufficient to conclude and decide about the nature of the two lands. 11. The Apex Court in (Parmeshwari Devi (Dead) by L.Rs. It is not mere statement on oath by the claimant that the two lands are similar that is sufficient to conclude and decide about the nature of the two lands. 11. The Apex Court in (Parmeshwari Devi (Dead) by L.Rs. and others v. Punjab State Electricity Board and another)1, reported in S.C. Cases 1994 (Supp.) 1 S.C. 564 has clearly held thus : "It is well settled law that it is duty of the claimant to prove the sale deeds by adducing evidence either of the vendor or vendee or attesting witness of passing of the consideration under the sale deed, to prove that the sale transactions are genuine transactions between the willing vendor and willing vendee; that the consideration had in fact been passed under the document duly registered; represent the prevailing market value; and also the lands under acquisition and the lands concerning the sale are similarly situated and possessed of same or similar nature, advantages, etc. The burden is always on the claimant." 12. The Apex Court in (Printers House Pvt. Ltd. v. Mst. Saiyadan (Deceased) by Lrs. and others)2, case reported in 1994(2) S.C.C. 133 has held thus : "If 'Comparable Sales Method of valuation of land' is adopted for determining the market value of an acquired plot of land, it generally holds good for determination of the market value of several acquired plots of land if acquisition of all such plots of land is made pursuant to the same preliminary notification. But if any of the factors, such as, location, shape, size, potentiality or tenure of one plot of acquired land widely differs from the other plot(s) of acquired land(s), then the market value of each plot of land acquired has to be determined independently of the other(s) even if all of them had been acquired pursuant to the same preliminary notification." The Apex Court has further held thus : "If the price under comparable sale is to be taken by the Court, as furnishing the 'price basis' for determination of the market value of the acquired land, the comparable sale must, firstly be genuine, secondly it must have taken place at a time proximate to the date of publication of the preliminary notification under section 4(1) of the Act, thirdly the land sold under the sale must be similar to the acquired land, and fourthly the land sold under the sale must be in the vicinity of the acquired land. It has, therefore, to be noted that the location, size, shape, tenure, user or potentiality of land under comparable sale, if do not compare favourably with the acquired land, price fetched in comparable sale cannot furnish the 'price basis' for determining the market value of the acquired land." 13. Considering the law laid by the Apex Court in the above two decisions, in a case where the claimant wants to rely upon the already executed sale deed to prove his claim for enhancement of compensation, based on such sale deed, it is necessary for the claimant to lead necessary evidence regarding the location, size, shape, tenure, user and potentiality of the land sold to be compared with the acquired land. A perusal of the evidence on record in the case in hand discloses that the respondents have not taken any pain to lead any evidence for the purpose of comparison of the said land with the acquired land. There is absolutely no evidence regarding the prevailing market price of the land in the locality in the year 1972. Merely on the basis of revenue assessment, it is not possible to jump to the conclusion about the value of the acquired land should be similar to the land which was subject matter of the sale deed. 14. There is absolutely no evidence regarding the prevailing market price of the land in the locality in the year 1972. Merely on the basis of revenue assessment, it is not possible to jump to the conclusion about the value of the acquired land should be similar to the land which was subject matter of the sale deed. 14. The learned Advocate for respondents has relied upon the unreported judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the matter of (Dhondiba Raoji Kadam v. State of Maharashtra)3, in First Appeal No. 196/1996 delivered on 15th October, 1993 in support of the contention that the revenue assessment can be relied upon to arrive at a valuation of the land. However, perusal of the judgment discloses that therein admittedly the land which was subject matter of the sale deed was subject to highest land revenue in the village and the evidence brought on record disclosed that in the relevant year, land with the highest land revenue was sold for Rs. 3500/- per acre. The said judgment undisputedly therefore, was delivered in the peculiar set of facts in that case and therefore, can be of no assistance to the respondents in the case in hand. 15. Once it is clear that the evidence in relation to the comparability of the land acquired with the land which was the subject matter of sale deed produced by the claimant was insufficient to arrive at any conclusion about the valuation of the acquired land, and there being no other evidence on record, to justify the claim for enhancement of compensation for the acquired land, the Reference Court was not justified in enhancing the compensation from Rs. 1,800/- to Rs. 5,000/- per acre for Bagayat land and Rs. 1,500/- to Rs. 3,500/- per acre for dry land. 16. In the result, therefore, appeals succeed. The impugned award is hereby quashed and set aside as far as it relates to the land in the reference cases which are subject matter of the appeals under consideration. 17. It is informed that in all these appeals, the State Government had deposited the amount in terms of enhancement granted by the Reference Court and the respondents were allowed to withdraw the said amount by giving security. The respondents shall repay the said amount to the State alongwith interest thereon at the rate of Rs. 17. It is informed that in all these appeals, the State Government had deposited the amount in terms of enhancement granted by the Reference Court and the respondents were allowed to withdraw the said amount by giving security. The respondents shall repay the said amount to the State alongwith interest thereon at the rate of Rs. 10% p.a. from the date of withdrawal of the said amount till the date of repayment within a period of three months from today. There shall be no order as to costs. Appeal succeed. -----