Judgment :- Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. Present Appeal is preferred by the original claimant against the impugned judgment and award dated 19-02-1994 passed by IInd Jt. Civil Judge, Senior Division, Parbhani in L.A.R. No. 281/1991. 3. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and award passed by the Reference Court, original claimant has preferred the above mentioned first appeal claiming enhanced compensation in respect of the acquired land @ Rs. 15,000/- per Acre. 4. Undisputed facts in the present case are that the S.L.A.O. issued notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Officer on 15-12-1981 for acquiring appellant - claimant’s land for Sub Market Yard admeasuring 1 H 28 R from Gat No. 511 at village Daithana. Thereafter, S.L.A.O. issued notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act dated 19-07-1982. After following due process of law, S.L.A.O. declared award dated 25-03-1983 and awarded compensation in respect of acquired land @ Rs.1200/- per Acre. Being aggrieved by the said award dated 25-03-1983, original claimant – appellant preferred Reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition on 09-05-1983 and claimed compensation in respect of the acquired land @ Rs.15,000/- per Acre. The appellant also claimed damages towards crops for three years @ Rs.3500/- per Acre. In all, appellant claimed additional sum of Rs.55,210/- towards enhanced compensation in Reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. Said Reference has been decided by the Reference Court by the judgment and award dated 19-02-1994 and awarded compensation in respect of acquired land @ Rs.6000/- per Acre. 5. Being aggrieved by the said the judgment and award, the original claimant preferred above mentioned first appeal on the ground that the learned Judge has erred in law in not appreciating the evidence in the shape of document or oral evidence in its proper perceptive which has resulted in miscarriage of justice. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the learned Judge has lost sight of the fact that the land acquired is situated just adjacent to the high way which passes from Parbhani to Gangakhed. This aspect has not at all been properly considered by the learned Judge. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the learned Judge has lost sight of the fact that the land acquired is situated just adjacent to the high way which passes from Parbhani to Gangakhed. This aspect has not at all been properly considered by the learned Judge. Learned Counsel for the appellant further submitted that the Reference Court ought to have consider that village Daithana, where land is situated, is a big village and there is Post Office, school, bank and also provisions of electricity and water supply scheme and considering these facts, Reference Court ought to have awarded compensation in respect of the acquired land @ Rs.15,000/- per Acre. 6. Mr. S.P. Daund,learned A.G.P. for the respondents opposed the present appeal and supported the judgment and award passed by the Reference Court. Learned A.G.P. submitted that the Reference Court has considered the entire evidence on record for determining market value in respect of the acquired land @ Rs.6000/- per Acre. Learned A.G.P. further submitted that the appellant failed to produce any cogent evidence on record to show that the claimant is entitled for enhanced compensation in respect of acquired land. On the basis of these submissions, learned A.G.P. submitted that the appeal preferred by appellant to be dismissed with costs. 7. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that claimant produced previous judgments in L.A.R. No. 11/1996 and L.A.R. No. 228/1983. In both these matters, Court awarded compensation in respect of acquired land @ Rs.15,000/- per Acre. It is to be noted here that the appellant failed to adduce evidence to show that in both these L.A.Rs., similar land is involved as in the present case. Learned Counsel for the appellant further submitted that Reference Court has considered the sale deeds from award which show that in the year 1975 land from village Daithana was sold out for price amounting to Rs.4000/- to 4724/- per Acre. He further pointed out that in the award passed by the S.L.A.O, sale instances of land for price amounting to Rs.3086/-, Rs.4590/-, 4724/- are referred. When in 1975 land from village Daithana was sold out for price amounting to Rs.4724/- per Acre, it is not understood how the Land Acquisition Officer did not consider the highest price that was prevailing in the vicinity of village Daithana. When in 1975 land from village Daithana was sold out for price amounting to Rs.4724/- per Acre, it is not understood how the Land Acquisition Officer did not consider the highest price that was prevailing in the vicinity of village Daithana. On the basis of these submissions, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the Reference Court ought to have awarded compensation in respect of the acquired land @ Rs.15,000/- per Acre. 8. It is to be noted that determination of market value of the land acquired in terms of provisions of the Land Acquisition Act depends on the large number of factors, first being nature and quality of land i.e. whether agricultural land or non agricultural land. Apart from nature and quality of land in the event of agricultural lands are acquired, the other factors relevant therefore are also required to be considered namely as to whether they are irrigated or non irrigated, extent of facilities available for irrigation, location of land, closeness thereof from any road or highway, its position in different seasons particularly in rainy season season, any building or structure, as also development in or around area. 9. Considering these principles, I have to consider the judgment and award passed by the Reference Court in the present case. It is admitted position that the appellant – original claimant failed to produce even a single sale instance to show that the claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation in respect of the acquired land. The appellant relied on the previous judgment in L.A.R. Nos. 11/1996 and 228/1983. The appellant has placed said judgments on record. These judgments show that in these cases, lands were acquired for National Highway and for Jaikwadi Project i.e. canal. In the present case, the acquisition is for Sub Market Yard. Therefore, in the present case, those judgments are not helpful for the appellant for determining market value in respect of the acquired land. In respect of submissions of the appellant for considering sale instances referred to by the L.A.O. in his award cannot be accepted at all. Neither the L.A.O. nor claimant produced this sale instance on record to prove the same. It is well settled principle of law that unless and until material relied by the L.A.O. in award is produced and proved before the Court, same cannot be considered at the time of fixing market value. Neither the L.A.O. nor claimant produced this sale instance on record to prove the same. It is well settled principle of law that unless and until material relied by the L.A.O. in award is produced and proved before the Court, same cannot be considered at the time of fixing market value. For that purpose, reference can be made to the Apex Court’s Judgment in the matter of Chimanlal Hargovinddas vs. S.L.A.O. Poona, reported in A.I.R. 1988 S.C. 1652. Relevant Para. No. 4 (1) to 4 (4) of the said judgment are as under : " 4. The following factors must be etched on the mental screen : (1) A reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act is not an appeal against the award and the Court cannot take into account the material relied upon by the Land Acquisition Officer in his Award unless the same material is produced and proved before the Court. (2) So also the Award of the Land Acquisition Officer is not to be treated as a judgment of the trial Court open or exposed to challenge before the court hearing the Reference. It is merely an offer made by the Land Acquisition Officer and the material used by him for making his valuation cannot be utilised by the Court unless produced and provided before it. It is not the function of the court to sit in appeal against the Award, approve or disapprove its reasoning, or correct its error or affirm, modify or reverse the conclusion reached by the Land Acquisition Officer, as if it were an appellate Court. (3) 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. (4) The claimant is in the position of a plaintiff who has to show that the price offered for his land in the award is inadequate on the basis of the materials produced in the Court. Of course the materials placed and produced by the other side can also be taken into account for this purpose." 10. In this case, Apex Court held that material relied by Land Acquisition Officer cannot be relied by the Court unless same is produced and proved. Of course the materials placed and produced by the other side can also be taken into account for this purpose." 10. In this case, Apex Court held that material relied by Land Acquisition Officer cannot be relied by the Court unless same is produced and proved. Therefore, I have to hold that the original claimant failed to produce any cogent evidence on record to show that he is entitled to any enhanced compensation in respect of market value of the acquired land. 11. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the acquiring body took the possession of the land in the year 1979 and therefore, the claimant is entitled to damages for the crops for three years @ Rs.3500/- P.A. It is admitted position that claimant failed to produce any evidence to that effect. Not only that, the claimant failed to produce any document to show that respondents have taken possession of the acquired land in the year 1979. Therefore, Reference Court rightly rejected the appellant’s claim towards damages for three years @ Rs.3500/- P.A. 12. In view of the above mentioned facts and circumstances, it is not necessary to interfere with the judgment and award passed by the Reference Court dated 19-02-1994 in L.A.R. No.281/1991. Hence I pass the following order. Order (1) First Appeal No. 593/1994 preferred by original claimant against the impugned judgment and award dated 19-02-1994 in L.A.R. No. 281/1991 is dismissed. (2) No order as to costs.