JUDGMENT Narain Singh "Azad", J. This judgment shall dispose of First Appeal No. 139/1998, 140/1998 and 141/1998, arising out of a common order dated 15-9-1997, passed by 1st Additional District Judge, Khandwa in reference cases, u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition and Compensation Act 1884, (which shall hereinafter referred, as Act), registered as Misc. Case No. 38/95, 36/95 and 37/95, respectively, which pertained to a common order dated 12-1-1994, passed by Land Acquisition Officer, (who shall hereinafter referred as officer), Indira Sagar Pariyojna, No. 2 Khandwa in case No. 1A/82, year 1992/93, wherein all the three respondents were awarded compensation. The facts in brief are that for the construction of Punasa facilityjetnal and channel at village Chandel, Tehsil-Khandwa, R.I. Circle-Mundi, under Indira Sagar Pariyojna, 20.22 Hectare, land of 15 agriculturists was acquired vide under notification, published on 1-1-1993 in M. P. Gazette. In respect of aforesaid acquisition of land, the news was got published on 30-11-1992 in Indore Samachar, so also Navbharat, and on 5-12-1992 in Chautha Sansaar. Further on 25-12-1992, the acquisitioned of aforesaid land was notified in the office of Land Acquisition Officer, so also on the aforesaid land situated in Village-Chandel. After affording opportunity of personal hearing to the bhumiswamis of acquisition land, u/s 5 of the Act, a general declaration was got published u/s 6 of the Act, in M.P. Gazette dated 30-4-1993 and various newspapers. On account of non submission of objections, by a common order dated 12-1-1994, the officer awarded a total amount of Rs. 19,42,423/- to the fifteen bhumiswamis, whose 20.22 hectare land was acquisitioned. This award was approved by Collector and officiating Deputy Secretary Government of M.P. on 24-1-1994. Out of 19.11 acre of land belonging to all these three respondents. 1.48 hectare land was acquisitioned and an amount of Rs. 1,68,473/- was awarded to respondent Mazeed. For 1.50 hectare of land, Rs. 1,53,808/- were awarded to respondent Mohd Arshad and for 4.75 hectare of land, an amount of Rs. 4,68,945/- was awarded to respondent Mohd Aarif. Since, these prayer made on behalf of respondents were rejected that their total land be acquisitioned and the compensation may be granted at the rate of Rs. 5000/- per acre, all the three respondents filed reference petitions u/s 18 of the Act, challenging the order of award dated 12-1-1994. 4,68,945/- was awarded to respondent Mohd Aarif. Since, these prayer made on behalf of respondents were rejected that their total land be acquisitioned and the compensation may be granted at the rate of Rs. 5000/- per acre, all the three respondents filed reference petitions u/s 18 of the Act, challenging the order of award dated 12-1-1994. All the three reference petitions were admitted for hearing after condoning the delay, by order dated 12-12-1996. Respondents assailed the impugned award on the grounds that the acquisitioned land falls in black soil category, the land was got levelled in which trucks of fertilizer and other soil were put, the stone boundary (Pal) was got constructed, therefore, wheat crop was being taken without any irrigation, the land was being irrigated by a well and tube well, through motor and P.V.C. 6 inches pipe line, which run into 1800 feet, yet the aforesaid factors are not taken into account for calculating the compensation. It is also the case of the respondents that two other agriculturists, whose similar lands are acquisitioned, are awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 39,000-40,000/- per acre inclusive of interest. Exclusive of solatium and the amount of interest for Aarif's acquisitioned land bearing khasra No. 178/2, total area 3.80 hectare (9.39 acre), Arshad's acquisitioned land bearing Khasra No. 178/3, area 1.34 hectare (3.31 acre) and Mazeed's acquisitioned land bearing survey No. 178/1, area 0.98 hectare (2.42 acre). Compensation is awarded at the rate of Rs. 27,703/-, Rs. 8,29,016/- and 28,994/- respectively. On a consideration of statement of Firan Sahai appellant/NAs, who was posted as Assistant Land Acquisition Officer at the relevant time, it is dictated by the learned First Addl. District Judge Khandwa in para 13 of the award that the other agriculturist Narain is awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 43,381/- per acre and Gulab Bai, the bhumiswami of adjacent land is awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 45000/- per acre, whereas the respondents are awarded compensation by calculating the same on the basis of per rupee amount of land revenue. Further, it is found dictated by the learned First Additional District Judge in para 15 of the award that admittedly the respondents land is of better quality than the adjacent lands, still they are not awarded compensation at the same rate on which the compensation is awarded to adjacent landholders of inferior land. Further, it is found dictated by the learned First Additional District Judge in para 15 of the award that admittedly the respondents land is of better quality than the adjacent lands, still they are not awarded compensation at the same rate on which the compensation is awarded to adjacent landholders of inferior land. Then, not only, it is laid down to be settled legal position by their lordships of the Supreme Court in Basant Kumar and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, that The lands possessed of only similar potentiality or the value with similar advantages offer comparable parity of the value (para 5, page 545) but, it is also found dictated by the Apex Court in K. Periasami Vs. Sub-Tehsildar (Land Acquisition), that Since the lands under consideration in the present appeals are situated in the same area and were acquired under the same acquisition and the Land Acquisition Officer himself had treated the lands to be in a better advantageous position than the lands covered in the other appeals, it would be clear that the lands in these appeals are possessed of better advantageous features than the lands covered by the judgment in other appeals by fixing their value at the rate of Rs. 92 per cent. This fact was not noticed by the learned judge, while disposing of the appeals, as it is observed that there is no evidence as to parity of the advantageous position of the lands to award the same compensation. The observation appears to be incorrect. The treatment of the lands by the Land Acquisition Officer himself by awarding to them a rate of Rs. 92 per cent in these appeals while he had awarded the rate of Rs. 70 per cent of lands in the other appeals furnishes the intrinsic evidence that the lands in question are situated in a better advantageous position than the lands concerned in the other appeals. When such is the situation the appellant also is entitled to parity of market value for the acquired lands. Thus, in the light of aforesaid settled legal position, the respondents were atleast entitled to claim compensation at the rate on which the compensation was granted to Gulab Bai and Narain, the landowners of adjacent land of inferior quality. When such is the situation the appellant also is entitled to parity of market value for the acquired lands. Thus, in the light of aforesaid settled legal position, the respondents were atleast entitled to claim compensation at the rate on which the compensation was granted to Gulab Bai and Narain, the landowners of adjacent land of inferior quality. Now in para 19 to 23 it is found justified by the First Additional District Judge, Khandwa as to how and how-much, less compensation is awarded to the respondents in comparison to Gulab Bai, the holder of adjacent land. Further it is found dictated by the learned First Addl. District Judge, Khandwa in para 24 of the award that the boundary (pal) is in existence on 42% of land and on account of pipe line, the respondents are entitled for compensation at a higher rate. Referring to the statement of appellants/NAs, witness Firan Sahai, Assistant Land Acquisition Officer and Premnarain Sharma, S.D.O. Revenue, the existence of a well on the acquisitioned land of respondent Mazeed is taken to be the admitted fact in para 26 of the award. Then, on considering the area of the pump house recorded in report marked N.A-1, submitted by appellants/NAs witness Premnarain, respondent Mazeed is found entitled for a raise of Rs. 25,922/- in the compensation, awarded. It is also noted in para 25 of the award that there were two tube wells on the acquisitioned lands of respondents, Aarif and Mazeed/NAs, to each of whom, compensation of Rs. 32,500/- ought to have been awarded for a tube well, against the awarded amount of Rs. 13,403/- and Rs. 13,374, respectively. For arriving at the aforesaid figures of Rs. 32,500/-, cogent reasons are recorded in impugned order. Then, taking into account, the boundary (Pal) which was in existence in 42% of the land, so also the P.V.C. pipe line for irrigation, which ran into 1800 feet, it is found dictated by the learned First Addl. District Judge, Khandwa in para 24 of the award that on the basis of facts, dictated by him, in para 24, so also by taking into account the fact of award of compensation at the rate of Rs. 38,331/- per acre to the adjacent landholders, the respondents were entitled for compensation at the rate of Rs. District Judge, Khandwa in para 24 of the award that on the basis of facts, dictated by him, in para 24, so also by taking into account the fact of award of compensation at the rate of Rs. 38,331/- per acre to the adjacent landholders, the respondents were entitled for compensation at the rate of Rs. 38,331 per acre atleast and for the aforesaid facilities of irrigation, the rate of compensation is to be enhanced by Rs. 8000/- per acre. Thus, it is noted that for awarding additional compensation of Rs. 2,12,819/-, Rs. 57,310/- and Rs. 86,973/- to the respondents Mohd Aarif, Arshad and Abdul Mazeed, respectively, the learned First Addl. District Judge, Khandwa has recorded just and proper reasons, based on facts, stated in paras 24 to 27 of the award. In para 29 of the award, the learned 1st Addl. District Judge, Khandwa has calculated the amount of solatium also, which is required to be paid, to each of the respondents, on the aforesaid additional amounts of compensation, u/s 23(2) of the Act. The interest is awarded on the aforesaid additional amounts at the rate of 12% per annum, since the date of publication of notification on 1-1-1993. In result, in the absence of any illegality, perversity or impropriety in the impugned order, therefore, the same is not found liable to be interfered with, and hence, all these three appeals stand disallowed and rejected. Final Result : Dismissed