JUDGMENT :- By this appeal, the appellants challenge the judgment passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Buldana, on 21st February, 1991, in Land Acquisition Case No.30 of 1988, directing the State of Maharashtra to pay the amount of Rs.34,560/- to the respondent along with interest, solatium and costs. 2. Few facts giving rise to the appeal are stated thus; The land of respondent was situated at village Urha and was acquired by the State of Maharashtra for construction of Vyagra Nala Project. Section 4 notification was issued on 10/2/1983. The land acquired admeasures 81 and 85 R. The Land Acquisition Officer granted total compensation of Rs.8000/- to the respondent/claimant. Being dissatisfied with the grant of meagre compensation, the respondent filed a Reference Application before the Collector, Buldana, who in turn referred the matter to the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Buldana. The reference Court by order dated 21st January, 1991, enhanced the compensation and granted it at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per hectare. Thus an additional compensation at the rate of Rs.16,000/- per hectare was granted by the reference Court. The State has challenged the award, as, according to the State, the compensation granted for the land is on the higher side and the reference Court was also not justified in granting separate compensation for the water tank and the pipe line. 3. Mrs. Taiwade, learned AGP, appearing on behalf of the State of Maharashtra submitted that the reference Court was not justified in granting compensation at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per hectare for the acquired land or the additional compensation at the rate of Rs.16,000/- per hectare for the acquired land. According to the learned AGP, there was hardly any evidence on record to prove that the market value of the land at the relevant time in the year 1983 was Rs.20,000/- per hectare. The learned AGP then submitted that the reference Court was not justified in granting separate compensation for the water tank and the pipe line, as, it is a well settled position of law that, those factors have to be considered as one unit along with the land while determining the market value of the land and separate compensation cannot be granted by the reference court for the additional work done on the land. 4. None appears on behalf of the respondent, though served. 5. 4. None appears on behalf of the respondent, though served. 5. On hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and on perusal of the record & proceedings with the judgment dated 21st February, 1991, it appears that following points arise for determination in this first appeal. (i) Whether the reference Court was justified in granting additional compensation at the rate ofRs.16,000/per hectare? (ii) Whether grant of compensation of Rs.8,000/- for water tank and pipe line was just & proper? (iii) What order? 6. To consider the aforesaid points of determination, it would be necessary to consider the evidence on record. In the instant case, the claimant entered into witness-box. He had specifically deposed about the quality and texture of his land. It was stated in his evidence that the field comprised of black cotton soil and the land was highly fertile. The claimant deposed that he cultivated Sugar-cane, Chilli, Gram, Wheat etc. in his land. Certain copies of Index Register were also produced on record to show the market value of the land at the relevant time. The land sold by the Extract of Sale Index at Exh.18 was barely two survey numbers away from the acquired land. The claimant had deposed that the quality of his land was much superior than the quality of the land sold by the transaction at Exh.18. The claimant then stated in his cross-examination that he used to sell the sugar-cane in the Bazar and Banana, Chilli, Gram through Adtya. 7. The reference Court relied on the aforesaid evidence and also relied on the Extract of Sale Index, which shows that 84 R of land was sold for a consideration of Rs.20,000/- in the year 1980. Since the notification in the instant case was issued on 10/2/1983 and since the market value of the land in terms of that transaction was Rs.l0,000/ - per acre, the reference Court found that the market value of the land of the claimant was not less than Rs.20,000/- per hectare. Since the Land Acquisition Officer had granted compensation only at the rate of Rs.4,000/- per hectare, the reference Court granted additional compensation at the rate of Rs.16,000/ - per hectare to the claimant. Since the Land Acquisition Officer had granted compensation only at the rate of Rs.4,000/- per hectare, the reference Court granted additional compensation at the rate of Rs.16,000/ - per hectare to the claimant. The reference court also considered the fact that the claimant cultivated both Kharip and Rabbi crops in the land and the sale instance of the year 1980 was in regard to the field which was situated barely two survey numbers away from the land of the claimant. 8. In the circumstances of the case, the reference Court did not commit any error in granting compensation at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per hectare or granting additional compensation at the rate of Rs.16,000/- per hectare for the acquired land. 9. It is, however, rightly submitted on behalf of the appellant that the reference Court was not justified in granting separate compensation for the water tank and the pipeline. It is a well settled position of law that the land, the trees, the building structures and the other fixtures on the land have to be treated as one unit while determining the compensation and separate compensation cannot be granted for each of the components. It would be necessary to refer to the judgments reported in AIR 1996 SC 106 & 1996(6) SCALE 288 in this regard. The grant of compensation of Rs.8,000/- by the reference Court for the water tank and the pipeline cannot be sustained, more so because the claimant has admitted in his cross-examination that he was not prevented by the Government to remove the pipeline from the land and take it away. 10. In the result, the first appeal is partly allowed. The judgment and award passed by the reference Court on 21st February, 1991 is hereby modified. The grant of compensation for the land at the additional rate of Rs.16,000/- per hectare is confirmed. The grant of compensation of Rs.8,000/- for the water tank and the pipeline cannot be sustained and is, therefore, set aside. The order passed by the reference Court is modified to the aforesaid extent. Order accordingly. No order as to costs. Ordered accordingly.