Judgment: (K.K. Tated, J.) 1. All the above three First Appeals are directed against the common Judgment and award dated 7th July, 2001 passed by Joint District Judge, Latur. As identical questions of facts and law arise in these Appeals, it will be appropriate to dispose of all these Appeals by common Judgment. 2. The relevant facts are that the Special Land Acquisition Officer (for short S.L.A.O.) issued notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the Act of 1984) on 19th December, 1991. After following due process of law, the S.L.A.O. issued notification under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 on 25th January, 1993. Thereafter the S.L.A.O. declared award dated 18th October, 1994 under Section 11 of the Act of 1894 and awarded compensation in respect of acquired land at the rate of Rs.44,000/- per Hector for the lands of the claimants in L.A.R. No.290 of 1995 and at the rate of Rs.42,000/- per Hector in respect of remaining claimants lands. 3. Being aggrieved by the said award of S.L.A.O. dated 18th October, 1994, Appellants/original claimants preferred Reference under Section 18 of the Act of 1894 and claimed enhanced compensation in respect of acquired lands. The Reference Court by Judgment and award dated 7th July, 2001, awarded enhanced compensation in respect of acquired lands at the rate of Rs.90,000/- per Hector. 4. Being aggrieved by the said Judgment and award passed by the Reference Court, Appellants/original claimants preferred above mentioned First Appeals for enhancement of compensation in respect of acquired lands. It is the case of the Appellants that the Reference Court failed to appreciate the sale deed dated 22nd July, 1991 at Exhibit 35 at the time of fixing the market value of the acquired lands. It is the case of the Appellants that they are entitled to compensation in respect of acquired lands at the rate of Rs.2,50,000/- per Hector. 5. Mr. S.K. Tambe, learned A.G.P. appearing on behalf of the Respondent - State opposed the enhancement of compensation on the ground that the Reference Court considered the sale deed dated 22nd July, 1991, Exhibit 35 and awarded market value in respect of acquired lands. It is the contention of the Respondent that though the sale deed Exhibit 35 is in respect of two Gunthas land only, the Reference Court awarded compensation of acquired lands at the rate of Rs.90,000/- per Hector. It is the contention of the Respondent that though the sale deed Exhibit 35 is in respect of two Gunthas land only, the Reference Court awarded compensation of acquired lands at the rate of Rs.90,000/- per Hector. The land involved in sale deed Exhibit 35 is a small plot of land, therefore the claimants are not entitled on the basis of same any enhancement in above mentioned Appeals. 6. Learned A.G.P. Mr. Tambe cited some authorities to support his contentions. He relied on i) Prithvi Raj Taneja (dead) By Lrs., vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and another, AIR 1977 Supreme Court, 1560, ii) State of J. & K., vs. Mohammad Mateen Wani and others, AIR 1998 Supreme Court, 2470 and iii) Genu Bhivaji Rao vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Upper Godavari, Nashik and another, 2008 (3) Mh. L.J. 772. In all these authorities, the acquisition was in respect of large area, for example, in the case of State of J. & K. vs. Mohammed Mateen Wani, the Government acquired 652 kanals and 12 marlas whereas in the present the Government acquired 4 Hectors 38 Rs in First Appeal No.16 of 2003, 1 Hectors 67 Rs in First Appeal No.17 of 2003 and 2 Hectors 27 Rs in First Appeal 18 of 2003. Therefore, those authorities can be distinguished on the point of large area of the acquired land. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellants rightly pointed out that the Apex Court in the matter of Lucknow Development Authority vs. Krishna Gopal Lahori and others, reported in AIR 2008 399 Supreme Curt, 399, held that: "It cannot, however, be laid down as an absolute proposition that in such cases, the rates fixed for small plots cannot be the basis for fixation of the rate. For example, where there is no other material it may in appropriate cases be open to the adjudicating Court to make comparison of the prices paid for small plots of land. However, in such cases necessary deductions/adjustments have to be made while determining the prices." 7. Learned counsel Mr. R.N. Dhorde appearing on behalf of the Appellants argued that though the sale deed Exhibit 35 is in respect of two Gunthas land, it can be considered for fixing the market value of acquired lands. However, in such cases necessary deductions/adjustments have to be made while determining the prices." 7. Learned counsel Mr. R.N. Dhorde appearing on behalf of the Appellants argued that though the sale deed Exhibit 35 is in respect of two Gunthas land, it can be considered for fixing the market value of acquired lands. He pointed out that the land involved in sale deed Exhibit 35 is Jirayat land, whereas the Appellants lands were Bagayat lands which were irrigated with the help of bore well. He further pointed out that PW1 specifically stated in his evidence that all acquired lands were Bagayat lands which were irrigated with the help of bore well. The Appellants have installed pipeline in the entire land for irrigating it. PW2 specifically stated in his deposition that he purchased the land admeasuring two Gunthas from Gut No.100 from Vishwanath for sum of Rs.10,000/-. The said witness stated in his evidence that he purchased dry land and the said land is in the vicinity of acquired lands. 8. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellants in support of his contention about fixing of market value of acquired land on the basis of small plot of lands, relied on two authorities, i.e. i) Ravinder Narain and another vs. Union of India, reported in (2003) 4 Supreme Court Cases, 481 and ii) Lucknow Development Authority vs. Krishna Gopal Lahori and others, reported in AIR 2008 Supreme Court, 399. In the matter of Ravinder Narain and another, learned counsel relied on Para 8 of the said Judgment, which reads as under: "8) In the case of Suresh Kumar v. Town Improvement Trust, Bhopal in a case under the Madhya Pradesh Town Improvement Trust Act, 1960 this Court held that the rates paid for small parcels of land do not provide a useful guide for determining the market value of the land acquired. While determining the market value of the land acquired, it has to be correctly determined and paid so that there is neither unjust enrichment on the part of the acquirer nor undue deprivation on the part of the owner. It is an accepted principle as laid down in the case of Vyricherla Narayana Gajapatiraju v. Revenue Divisional Officer that the compensation must be determined by reference to the price which a willing vendor might reasonably expect to receive from the willing purchaser. It is an accepted principle as laid down in the case of Vyricherla Narayana Gajapatiraju v. Revenue Divisional Officer that the compensation must be determined by reference to the price which a willing vendor might reasonably expect to receive from the willing purchaser. While considering the market value disinclination of the vendor to part with his land and the urgent necessity of the purchaser to buy it must alike be disregarded, neither must be considered as acting under any compulsion. The value of the land is not to be estimated as its value to the purchaser. But similarly this does not mean that the fact that some particular purchaser might desire the land more than others is to be disregarded. The wish of a particular purchaser, though not his compulsion may always be taken into consideration for what it is worth. Section 23 of the Act enumerates the matters to be considered in determining compensation. The first criterion to be taken into consideration is the market value of the land on the date of the publication of the notification under Section 4(1). Similarly Section 24 of the Act enumerates the matters which the court shall not take into consideration in determining the compensation. A safeguard is provided in Section 25 of the Act that the amount of compensation to be awarded by the court shall not be less than the amount awarded by the Collector under Section 11. Value of the potentiality is to be determined on such materials as are available and without indulgence in any fits of imagination. Impracticability of determining the potential value is writ large in almost all cases. There is bound to be some amount of guesswork involved while determining the potentiality." In the matter of Lucknow Development Authority, learned counsel for the Appellants relied on Para 15 and 16 of the Judgment, which reads as under: "15) Where large area is the subject-matter of acquisition, rate at which small plots are sold cannot be said to be a safe criteria. Reference in this Context may be made to three decisions of this Court in The Collector of Lakhimpur v. Bhuban Chandra Dutta ( AIR 1971 SC 2015 ); Prithvi Raj Taneja (dead) by LRs. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr. ( AIR 1977 SC 1560 ) and Smt. Kausalya Devi Bogra and Ors. etc. v. Land Acquisition Officer, Aurangabad and Anr. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr. ( AIR 1977 SC 1560 ) and Smt. Kausalya Devi Bogra and Ors. etc. v. Land Acquisition Officer, Aurangabad and Anr. ( AIR 1984 SC 892 ). 16) It cannot, however, be laid down as an absolute proposition that the rates fixed for the small plots cannot be the basis for fixation of the rate. For example, where there is no other material it may in appropriate cases be open to the adjudicating Court to make comparison of the prices paid for small plots of land. However, in such cases necessary deductions/adjustments have to be made while determining the prices." 9. In both these Cases the Apex Court held that where large area is subject matter of acquisition, rate at which small plots are sold cannot be said to be a safe criteria. It is further held that, it cannot, however, be laid down as an absolute proposition that the rates fixed for the small plots cannot be the basis for fixation of the rate. Where there is no other material it may in appropriate cases be open to the adjudicating Court to make comparison of the prices paid for small plots of land. However, in such cases necessary deductions/adjustments have to be made while determining the prices. In the present case, the Respondent State of Maharashtra have not produced a single sale deed and/or any other evidence to show the market rate of acquired lands. Not only that the Respondent – State failed to produce any documentary evidence to support the award dated 18th October, 1994 passed by S.L.A.O. under Section 11 of the Act of 1894. The learned A.G.P. for the Respondent argued that small plot of land cannot at all be looked into by the Court while determining a compensation payable to the claimants for acquisition of large plot of lands. This is, in our view, not a correct proposition of law considering the facts of the present case. It cannot, however, be laid down as an absolute proposition that the rates fixed for the small plots cannot be the basis for fixation of the market value of the acquired land. For example, where there is no other material it may in appropriate cases be open to the adjudicating Court to make comparison of the prices paid for small plots of land. For example, where there is no other material it may in appropriate cases be open to the adjudicating Court to make comparison of the prices paid for small plots of land. However, in such cases necessary deductions/adjustments have to be made while determining the prices. In the present case the Respondent acquired lands ranging from 1 and 1/2 Hectors to 4 and 1/2 Hectors. 10. In the similar way, the Apex Court in the matter of Smt. Kausalya Devi Bogra and others, etc. vs. Land Acquisition Officer, Aurangabad and another, reported in AIR 1984 Supreme Court, 892, held that at the time of fixing market value of the acquired land on the basis of sale of smaller property, deduction to be made. Para 13 of the Judgment reads as under: "13) Two principles relating to the matter of fixation of compensation relevant for the present purpose may be kept in view. When large tracts are acquired, the transaction in respect of small properties do not offer a proper guideline. Therefore, the valuation in transactions in regard to smaller property is not taken as a real basis for determining the compensation for larger tracts of property (see Prithvi Raj Taneja vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (1977) 2 SCR 633 : ( AIR 1977 SC 1560 ); Padma Uppal vs. State of Punjab, (1977) 1 SCR 329 : ( AIR 1977 SC 580 ). In certain other cases this Court indicated that for determining the market value of a large property on the basis of a sale transaction for smaller property a deduction should be given. In Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore vs. T. Adinarayan Setty (1959) Suppl (1) SCR 404 : ( AIR 1959 SC 429 ), a reduction of 25% was indicated while there are certain other cases where the view is that the reduction should be to the extent of 1/3. Again, in the very scheme for fixation of compensation provided by the Land Acquisition Act there is bound to be some amount of arbitrariness. The acquisition is deemed to be a statutory purchase and on the basis of evidence the law requires an assumed consideration to be determined. Keeping in view the fact that acquisition is of compulsory nature, a solatium of 15% on the valuation is provided. The acquisition is deemed to be a statutory purchase and on the basis of evidence the law requires an assumed consideration to be determined. Keeping in view the fact that acquisition is of compulsory nature, a solatium of 15% on the valuation is provided. Bearing these considerations in view and taking into account the fact that the lands in question were located in a developed part of Aurangabad and had considerable potential value, we proceed to fix the market value of the property. One acre of land is equal to 4840 square yards. The learned Civil Judge had maintained a distinction between the two classes of lands. We take note of that fact also in the matter of determining the compensation. We, however, do not propose to indicate separate valuations for the two classes of lands. Taking an overall picture of the matter, we direct compensation to be fixed at the rate of Rs. 1.50 per square yard or Rs.7260/- per acre for all the lands of the present appellants acquired by the notification in question. Over and above this amount, the appellants shall be entitled to statutory solatium of 15% as also interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the additional compensation from the date of dispossession till payment thereof. We direct the Collector to work out the compensation on the basis indicated above within two months from today. If the amount so determined is not paid within three months thereafter, the interest on the additional compensation shall be at the rate of 12% per annum till payment is made." 11. Considering the above three authorities, Court can rely on a sale deed at Exhibit 35 for fixing market value of acquired land. Only the question remains about the deduction at the time of fixing market value of acquired land, as the sale deed Exhibit 35 is in respect of small plot of land. In the sale deed Exhibit 35 rate of land comes to Rs.5,00,000/- per Hector of dry land. Whereas in the present Appeals, Respondent acquired Bagayat lands of the Appellants/claimants. Considering the smallness of the land involved in sale deed Exhibit 35, we can deduct 2/3 amount for fixing the market value of acquired lands. On the basis of deduction of 2/3 amount, rate comes to Rs.1,66,666/- per Hector. Whereas in the present Appeals, Respondent acquired Bagayat lands of the Appellants/claimants. Considering the smallness of the land involved in sale deed Exhibit 35, we can deduct 2/3 amount for fixing the market value of acquired lands. On the basis of deduction of 2/3 amount, rate comes to Rs.1,66,666/- per Hector. There cannot be any difference of opinion on the point that irrigated land fetches considerably higher value in the market than the value of dry crop land taking into consideration its capacity to produce double crops etc. and to give more yield and therefore more income. Considering the acquired land being Bagayat land, we round up the figure to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/-per Hector. In the above mentioned facts and circumstances, we fix the market value of acquired land at the rate of Rs.2,00,000/- per Hector. 12. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellants made grievance that the Reference Court failed to consider market value of tube well and pipe line. He contended that the claimants are entitled a sum of Rs.50,000/-towards tube well and pipe line. The Reference Court after considering the evidence on record rightly held that the claimants have not led any evidence about the bore well and pipe line and therefore, they are not entitled to any enhancement in respect of market value of bore well and pipe line. 13. Needless to state that in addition to the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.2,00,000/- per Hector the claimants are also entitled to additional statutory benefits as per the Act of 1894 i.e. 12% component/30% solatium and interest thereon. The Reference Court after giving notice to both the sides, calculate the exact amount due and payable to the Appellants/claimants, as early as possible. Hence we pass following order: ORDER The First Appeal Nos.16 of 2003, 17 of 2003 and 18 of 2003 are partly allowed. The Awards in all those appeals stand modified as under. The market value of the acquired lands is determined @Rs.2 lakhs (Rupees Two Lakhs only) per hector. The appellants in addition to the market value of the land shall be entitled to the statutory benefits as per the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 i.e. 30% solatium, 12% component and interest. The Awards of the reference Court in the appeals stand modified as above. The appellants in addition to the market value of the land shall be entitled to the statutory benefits as per the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 i.e. 30% solatium, 12% component and interest. The Awards of the reference Court in the appeals stand modified as above. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, no order as to costs. Award to be drawn accordingly.