ORAL JUDGMENT: - This Appeal takes exception to the Judgment and Decree passed by the Civil Judge, S. D., Ratnagiri dated 31-10-1985 in Land Reference No.7 of 1983. The land in question admeasures about 1 Hectors and 68-5 Ares out of Survey No. 204A Hissa No.1, 5A, 5B and 9 of Village Lanja. The suit land has been acquired by the Government of Maharashtra for establishment of 33 H.K.V. sub-station. The land was owned and possessed by the Appellants herein. Section 4 Notification was issued on 12th June, 1980 which was duly published. Public Notice under section 4(1) was also issued on 22-7-1980. Individual notice were also given on 28-7-1980 and later on notification under section 6 was published on 21-3-1981. As there was some printing error, corrigendum was issued and published on 3-9-1981. Finally, notice under section 9(1), (2), (3) and (4) fixing the date of hearing and handing over the possession was issued on 3-1-1983. It was notified that possession of the suit lands will be taken over by invoking urgency clause on 19th January 1983. Accordingly, possession of the suit lands was taken over on 19-1-1983. Subsequently, the Special land Acquisition Officer passed award dated 18-21983 determining the market price of the suit land at the rate of Rs. 350/- per Are. Besides, the Special Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation of Rs. 1530/- for fruit trees and solatium at the rate of 15% over the amount of compensation under section 23(2) and further interest at the rate of 4% per annum from 19-1-1983 till the date of payment of final compensation. In all sum of Rs. 70,044,57 ps. were awarded as compensation by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. That amount was accepted by the Appellants on 25th March 1983 under protest and, the Appellants also submitted application for enhancement of compensation and for making reference under section 18 of the Act. Accordingly, reference under sectin18 was made to the Court. The said reference was numbered as Land Reference No. 7/1983 and was tried by Civil Judge, (S.D.), Ratnagiri. In the said reference, claimants examined three witnesses in support of their claim for enhancement of compensation at the rate of Rs. 1500/- per Are and Rs. 4000/- for trees, Rs. 900/- for compound wall and Rs. 20000/- as loss in respect of the other land. In the said reference, claimants examined three witnesses in support of their claim for enhancement of compensation at the rate of Rs. 1500/- per Are and Rs. 4000/- for trees, Rs. 900/- for compound wall and Rs. 20000/- as loss in respect of the other land. Roznama indicates that besides three witnesses examined on behalf of the Appellants, the appellants produced two sale deeds along with Exh. 44 and that the application was allowed and the said documents were allowed to be produced on record. Reference was decided by the impugned Judgment and Decree dated 31-10-1985. The same was partly allowed by granting enhancement of market price at the rate of Rs. 250/- per Are in respect of acquired land and Rs. 8000/- in respect of severance of other land. Reference Court has adverted to materials which were before the Special Land Acquisition Officer as well as further materials and the oral evidence which was adduced before the Court during the reference. After analyzing the materials on record in Para 9 of the Judgment the reference Court has found that the Panchanama of valuation prepared by Horticulture Department would indicate the market price of the land at the rate of Rs. 500/- per Are. Besides, reference is made to three sale instances on the basis of which court found that it was possible to hold that the market price of the land at the relevant time was around Rs. 600/per Are. Insofar as sale instances of Waghdhare which was pressed into service on behalf of the claimants is concerned, the Reference Court observed that the same was not comparable one. Inasmuch as, it was almost two furlongs away from the disputed land, whereas the said land was situated in the heart of the city near S. T. stand. Taking over all view of the matter, the Reference Court found that the market price at the rate of Rs. 600/- per Are would be the adequate and appropriate compensation was granted. Insofar as loss on account of severance to other land is concerned, the Reference Court observed that the claimants were entitled for compensation under that sale by virtue of section 23(1). The Reference Court restricted the amount of Rs. 8000/- having regard to the fact that the market price of the suit land was determined at Rs. 600/- per Are. Insofar as loss on account of severance to other land is concerned, the Reference Court observed that the claimants were entitled for compensation under that sale by virtue of section 23(1). The Reference Court restricted the amount of Rs. 8000/- having regard to the fact that the market price of the suit land was determined at Rs. 600/- per Are. In so far as the claim for compensation towards the trees was concerned, the Reference Court found that nothing was brought on record that the valuation carried out by the Horticulture Department was not proper and claimants did not examine any witness to disprove the report of the Horticulture Department. Accordingly, the additional claim set up by the claimants was negatived. In so far as amount towards the loss of compound wall being sum of Rs. 900/-, Reference Court in Para 12 observed that the claimant No.3 has nowhere stated anything in respect of the said compound wall in his deposition and that nothing was brought on record for removal of gadaga etc. Accordingly that claim of Rs. 900/- was also rejected. In the circumstances, the Reference has been partly allowed as mentioned above, by the impugned Judgment which is subject of challenge in the present appeal. 2. The learned counsel for the Appellants contends that the Reference Court has completely over looked the fact that during the cross-examination of the claimants witnesses nothing has been suggested to them that the sale instance No. 3 was incomparable, whereas their evidence would indicate that the suit lands were situated in prime locality of the city with additional advantage of water facility. Besides, the sale instances relied are lacking water facility. The learned counsel further contends that the sale instance No.3 as relied by the claimants took place in the year 1976, whereas the acquisition of the suit land was by virtue of Notification in June, 1980 and, therefore, reasonable escalation of price ought to be provided minimum at 15 per cent per annum. The learned counsel further contends that there is absolutely no evidence adduced on behalf of the respondent Government to justify the rate at Rs. 3501- per Are. It is therefore, submitted that the Reference Court has failed to appreciate the relevant materials on record and applied the incorrect principle for determining the market prince of the suit land. The learned counsel further contends that there is absolutely no evidence adduced on behalf of the respondent Government to justify the rate at Rs. 3501- per Are. It is therefore, submitted that the Reference Court has failed to appreciate the relevant materials on record and applied the incorrect principle for determining the market prince of the suit land. Insofar as the loss caused to the claimants on account of disturbance of approach road to the said land is concerned, it is contended that the Reference Court has not given any reason whatsoever for determining the amount under that caption at the rate of Rs. 80001- only when the claimants had demanded Rs. 20,0001- towards the land lost. Insofar as the view taken by the Reference Court relating to trees is concerned, the learned counsel contends that it has been over looked that the trees were fruit bearing trees and, therefore, compensation determined was inadequate. The learned counsel has also prayed for compensation for loss on account of compound wall being sum of Rs. 9001contending that there was sufficient evidence to grant that amount as compensation. The learned counsel further contends that, in any case, the view taken by the Reference Court with regard to the additional benefits is concerned, the same will have to be now granted in terms of the recent decision of the Apex Court reported in (2001)7 SCC Page 211 in the case of Sunder vs. Union of India. 3. On the other hand, the learned Additional Government Pleader contends that no fault can be found with the approach adopted by the Reference Court and that no interference is warranted with the conclusion reached that the market price of the suit land should be Rs. 6001- per Are. He contends that record would indicate that no sale instance has been proved by the claimants during the evidence. He however, concedes that two sale instances were allowed to be brought on record along with Application Exh. 44. He submits that at the best only those two sale instances can be looked into but, as rightly held by the Reference Court, the same pertained to year 1984-85 and therefore, of no avail. Accordingly, the same cannot be said to be comparable sale instances. According to him, there is absolutely no evidence brought on record by the claimants to establish their claim for additional compensation towards the market price. Accordingly, the same cannot be said to be comparable sale instances. According to him, there is absolutely no evidence brought on record by the claimants to establish their claim for additional compensation towards the market price. Reliance has been placed on the decision of the Apex Court in AIR 1988 SC 1652 in the case of Chimanlal Hargovinddas vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Poona and another to contend that the Court cannot take into account the materials relied upon by the Land Acquisition Officer unless the said material is produced and proved before the Court. Reliance is also placed on this decision to contend that the Court has to treat the reference as original proceeding and determined the market valuation on the basis of the material produced before it. The learned counsel contends that, therefore, there is no question of granting of enhanced compensation to the claimants in the fact situation of the present case. Insofar as the compensation on the other head is concerned the learned counsel contends that there is absolutely no evidence brought by the claimants on record in that behalf and has been so observed by the Reference Court. He contends that no fault can be found with the approach of the Reference Court for not accepting the plea regarding the additional compensation under those heads. He submits that the reference Court has properly compensated the claimants insofar as loss due to severance of other land in concerned, having regard to the market price of the suit land being determined at Rs. 6001- per Are. The learned counsel then fairly concedes that insofar as the additional benefits and solatium is concerned, the claimants would be entitled for amount in terms of the decision of the Apex Court in Sunders case (supra) and at the best the Appellants would succeed only to that extent. 4.Having considered the rival submissions, the points for my consideration are: 1) whether the Court below has applied correct principle for determining the compensation? 2) If no, in what respect? 3) Are Claimants entitled for enhancement in compensation and/or additional benefits or interest? 4) If yes, of what amount? 5. I shall examine the Point Nos. 1 and 2 above together. 2) If no, in what respect? 3) Are Claimants entitled for enhancement in compensation and/or additional benefits or interest? 4) If yes, of what amount? 5. I shall examine the Point Nos. 1 and 2 above together. I have no hesitation in straight way accepting the contention on behalf of the respondent that the Court cannot take into account the materials relied upon by the Land Acquisition Officer in his award, unless the said material is produced and proved before the Court in the reference proceeding. For it is well settled that the Court has to treat the reference as an original proceeding before it and determine the market value afresh on the basis of the material produced before it. This statement of law can be deduced from the case of Chimanlal vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Poona (supra). In the present case, it is seen that except oral evidence, the claimants have not proved the other materials which were either before the Land Acquisition Officer or the sale instances which were pressed into service to buttress their claim for additional compensation. However, it is not in dispute that two sale instances were allowed to be taken on record along with Application Exh. 44. Insofar as those two sale instances are concerned, the Reference Court in Para 8 has observed that the said sale instances are not comparable one because, they pertain to year 1984-85. No fault can be found with the said approach of the Reference Court. Even assuming that the said sale instances could be pressed into service for additional compensation, however, it is seen that the rate mentioned in the said sale instances is only between Rs. 1100/- or Rs. 1200/- per Are. In other words, that was the prevailing rate sometime in 1984-85 ip. respect of lands such as the suitland. It is seen that the Reference Court has awarded Rs. 600/- per Are as market price of the suit land which was acquired pursuant to notification issued in June, 1980. Even if this Court was to apply the principle of providing increase to reasonable extent at the rate of 15 per cent per annum to the claimants; by taking rate of Rs. 600/- in the year 1980-81 as base price, the amount that would be fetched in the year 1984-85 would not exceed Rs. 1100/-. Even if this Court was to apply the principle of providing increase to reasonable extent at the rate of 15 per cent per annum to the claimants; by taking rate of Rs. 600/- in the year 1980-81 as base price, the amount that would be fetched in the year 1984-85 would not exceed Rs. 1100/-. Understood thus, the sale instances which have been relied by the Appellants even if accepted, at best would entitle the appellants for compensation which is already awarded by the Reference Court. Even for this reason. It is not possible to find fault with the view taken by the Reference Court that the market price for the suit lands at the relevant time was and should be determined at the rate of Rs. 600/- per Are. In this view of the matter, it will not be necessary for me to go into the other reasons recorded by the Reference Court. To my mind, the Reference Court has rightly held that the market price of the suit land should be around Rs. 600/- per Are. The Reference Court has rightly discarded the sale instances in respect of Waghdhare s land, as it was incomparable to the suit land. I see no reason to doubt the correctness of that view. Once the above said sale instances are to be discarded, there is no other instance brought on record. Therefore, it will not be necessary to make any further enquiry regarding the claim for additional compensation in respect of the suit land. 6. That takes me to the claim with regard to severance and loss of the other land on account of acquisition of the said land. The Reference Court has held in Para 10 of its Judgment that the claimants would be entitled to sum of Rs. 8000/in that behalf. There can be no doubt that the Appellants/Claimants are entitled to that compensation in terms of section 23(1) (forthly). The question is, whether the compensations granted by the Reference Court can be said to be inadequate? The Reference Court has determined the amount under this head taking into account the market price of the suit land at the relevant time as Rs. 600/- per Are. The land which has been affected due to acquisition of the suit land admeasures only 29 Are. The Reference Court has determined the amount under this head taking into account the market price of the suit land at the relevant time as Rs. 600/- per Are. The land which has been affected due to acquisition of the suit land admeasures only 29 Are. The Reference Court has virtually granted 50 per cent of the market valuation of the land due to loss of severance of other land. There is no reason to take a different view in the matter, as the amount of Rs. 8000/- would be almost around 50 per cent of the market value of the said land. 7. That takes me to the third point regarding additional compensation due to loss of fruit bearing trees. The Horticulture Department in its report has taken into account this aspect of the matter. There is no dispute that number of trees identified in the report of the Horticulture Department is accurate. The only grievance made before this Court is that the Court below has not considered the fact that the said trees were fruit bearing trees. However, to my mind, the Reference Court has considered that aspect of the matter as it has observed that the report of the Horticulture Department which has gone unchallenged, takes into account that the trees were fruit bearing trees. In the circumstances, there is no reason to take a different view than the one taken by the Reference Court under this heading. 8. That takes me to compensation in respect of loss of compound wall. In the first place the compensation under this head is claimed as Rs. 900/-. In any case, as rightly observed by the Reference Court there is absolutely no evidence brought on record as to what payments the claimants were required to make for removal of the said Gadage etc. Accordingly, the claimants have no case even in respect of this claim. 9. Considering the totality of the aforesaid, to my mind, it is not possible to hold that the Court below has not applied the correct principle for determining the compensation as contended. In the circumstances, Point Nos. 1 and 2 will have to be answered against the claimants. 10. That takes me to the other two Point Nos. 3 and 4 and I shall deal with them together. In the circumstances, Point Nos. 1 and 2 will have to be answered against the claimants. 10. That takes me to the other two Point Nos. 3 and 4 and I shall deal with them together. I have already held that the claimants are not entitled for additional compensation under any of the heads claimed by them. However, there is no doubt that the appellants are entitled to get benefit of the amended provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and they are entitled for additional benefits as well as solatium under section 23(2) and section 28 as amended. The entitlement under those provisions has now been authoritatively answered by the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Sunders case (supra). The appellants would, therefore, be entitled for additional benefit and solatium as per the amended provisions. The Judgment and Decree of the Civil Judge, (S.D.), Ratnagiri which is subject matter of challenge will have to be modified only to that limited extent. 11. Accordingly, the appellants would be entitled to enhanced compensation at the rate of Rs. 250/- per Are in respect of acquired land which is to the extent of 1 Hector 68.5R out of Survey No. 304A Hissa No. 5A, 5B, 1 and 9 along with additional compensation amount of Rs. 8000/- in respect of severance as per award passed in LAQ/SR/764/Ratnagiri by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Retnagiri, along with necessary solatium on the said amount, with interest and additional benefit as per amended provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. 12. In the circumstances, Appeal partly succeeds the above terms. Appeal partly allowed.