Judgment : Oral Judgment: (K.K. Tated, J.) Heard learned A.G.P. for the appellant. No one appeared on behalf of the respondent when the matter was called out for hearing. 2. Present appeal is preferred by the original respondent - State of Maharashtra against the judgment and award dated 21-10-1994 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalgaon in L.A.R. No.117/1988. In the present case, the S.L.A.O. issued notification dated 07-08-1980 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act for acquiring respondent original claimant’s land from Block No.135/1 of village Andalwadi, Tq. Raver District Jalgaon admeasuring 89 Ares for the extension of Gavthan of village Andalwadi. After following due process of law, the S.L.A.O. passed award dated 22-09-1986 and awarded compensation in respect of the acquired land @ Rs.42,000/- per Hector. 3. Being aggrieved by the said award, the respondent - original claimant preferred Reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act dated 15-10-1986. In the said Reference, the respondent - original claimant claimed compensation of 89 Ares of land @ Rs.1000/- per Guntha i.e. Rs.89,000/- and for construction of well Rs.75,000/-.Said Reference was decided by IIIrd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalgaon by judgment and award dated 27-10-1994 holding that the respondent - original claimant is entitled compensation in respect of the acquired land @ Rs.75,000/- per Hector and for well Rs.10,000/-. 4. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and award passed by the Reference Court, the State of Maharashtra preferred present appeal on the ground that the Reference Court erred in coming to the conclusion that the claimant is entitled compensation in respect of the acquired land @ Rs.75,000/- per Hector as well as a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards well. Learned A.G.P. appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the Reference Court erred in awarding compensation to the well without any evidence on record. He further submitted that the Reference Court erred in ignoring the evidence at Exh-22 of Awwal Karkun for appellants. He further submitted that the Reference Court erred in coming to the conclusion that the acquired land was bagayat, on the basis of some 7/12 extracts produced by the original claimant. He further submitted that the Reference Court ought to have held that no evidence was produced by the claimant to establish that he is entitled enhanced compensation in respect of the acquired land as well as well. He further submitted that the Reference Court ought to have held that no evidence was produced by the claimant to establish that he is entitled enhanced compensation in respect of the acquired land as well as well. On the basis of these submission, learned A.G.P. submitted that the present appeal to be allowed with costs. 5. It is admitted position that it is the duty of the claimant to produce cogent evidence on record to show that he is entitled to enhanced compensation in respect of the acquired land. In the present case, respondent - original claimant produced two sale deeds at Exhibit - 14 dated 11-03-1981 and Exhibit - 15 dated 30-11-1977. Exhibit - 14 is in respect of 30 x 17 ft. of land. Consideration stated in this sale deed is Rs.1500/- In another sale deed at Exhibit-15 land involved is 40 x 17 ft. which was sold for Rs.1500/-. With the assistance of learned A.G.P. I have gone through the Record and the Proceedings and particularly Exhibit-14 and 15 alongwith Exhibit-16 to 18 i.e. 7/12 extracts produced by the claimant. Both the sale deeds are not considered by the trial Court at the time of fixing market value of the acquired land. The trial Court held that both these sale instances are pertaining to plots of land already situated within Gavthan area or at the most, it can be stated that within village limits. However, present land has been acquired for extension of Gavthan limit. Therefore, both the sale deeds cannot be useful for determining market value of the acquired land. Except these two sale deeds, .the respondent failed to produce any other cogent evidence to show that he is entitled enhanced compensation in respect of the acquired land. In any case, the Reference Court enhanced compensation payable to the respondent – original claimant in respect of the acquired land @ Rs.75,000/- per Hector on the basis of future potentiality. The Reference Court in Para.24, 25, and 26 considered the potentiality factor of land for determining the market value on the date of issuing notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. 6. It is admitted position that on the date of issuing notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, the respondent – original claimant was using land for agricultural purpose only. 6. It is admitted position that on the date of issuing notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, the respondent – original claimant was using land for agricultural purpose only. Even deposition of witness No.1 for claimant Abhiman Mahipat Koli admitted in cross examination that his father has not submitted an application to covert the land under acquisition to non agricultural land. He further admitted in his evidence that he used to cultivate the land even after issuing notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. The respondent - original claimant produced 7/12 extracts for the years 1995-96, 1996-97 which are at Exhibit-16, 17 and 18 showing that the respondent – original claimant was cultivating the land till 1996 when the award came to be passed by the S.L.A.O. 7. If evidence in regard to two sale transactions is eliminated then there is no reliable and dependable evidence before the Court for determining market value of the acquired land. The burden to prove what will the fair and reasonable value of the acquired land is upon the claimant. In the matter in hand, the claimant produced two sale instances at Exhibit-14 and 15 and both the sale instances are discarded by the Reference Court itself. Therefore, in absence of credible and dependable evidence, in my view, learned Judge was not justified in allowing the enhanced compensation to the claimant. 8. Determination of market value under Land Acquisition Act depends upon large number of factors, first being the nature and quality of land i.e. whether agricultural or non agricultural. Apart from the nature and quality of land in the event of agricultural lands are acquired the other factors relevant for fixing market value i.e. bagayat, jirayat or Potkharaba land. Not only that, at the time of fixing market value, we have to consider whether the land is adjacent to the highway or developed area. In the present case, respondent - original claimant’s land was acquired for the purpose of extension of Gavthan area. Admittedly on the date of issuing notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, lands were used as agricultural lands. These facts were admitted by P.W.1 in his cross examination also. 9. In the present case, respondent - original claimant’s land was acquired for the purpose of extension of Gavthan area. Admittedly on the date of issuing notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, lands were used as agricultural lands. These facts were admitted by P.W.1 in his cross examination also. 9. Though the respondent - original claimant failed to produce any cogent evidence on record for enhancement of compensation in respect of the acquired land, Reference Court enhanced compensation payable to the respondent – original claimant @ Rs.75,000/- per Hector on the basis that lands have future potentiality. This cannot be a ground for enhancement of compensation in respect of the acquired land. The Apex Court in the matter of Tarlochan Singh and another vs. State of Punjab and others, reported in (1995) 2 S.C.C. 424 , held that future development and potential prospective use of acquired land etc., not relevant for the purpose of market value of the acquired land. Para 5 of the said judgment reads as under: "5. It is next contended that the lands in the small extents of about 33 sale transactions would show that the lands are capable of fetching in future higher market value and the notification itself was published for the purpose of planned development of city. Therefore, the High Court was not justified in determining the market value @ Rs.58,000 for Jamalpur area. Potential value for future development should have been taken into consideration in fixing the market value. Section 24 of the Land Acquisition Act expressly prohibits and puts an embargo on the Court in taking the factors mentioned in Section 24 as relevant in determining the market value. Under these circumstances, the future development and potential prospective use of the acquisition etc., are not relevant circumstances. Even the purpose of acquisition is not relevant. We are of the opinion that the appellants are not entitled to future increase for determination of compensation and the appeals do not warrant interference. The appeals are accordingly dismissed but without costs since the respondents are not represented by any counsel." 10. Even the purpose of acquisition is not relevant. We are of the opinion that the appellants are not entitled to future increase for determination of compensation and the appeals do not warrant interference. The appeals are accordingly dismissed but without costs since the respondents are not represented by any counsel." 10. In my opinion, the Reference Court erred in coming to the conclusion that though the respondent - original claimant failed to produce any cogent evidence by way of sale deed to show whether he is entitled enhanced compensation in respect of the acquired land, the respondent - original claimant is entitled enhanced compensation on the basis of future potentiality of the acquired land. Therefore, I hold that the Reference Curt erred in coming to the conclusion that the claimant is entitled to the compensation in respect of the acquired land @ Rs.75,000/- per Hector. 11. Reference Court also awarded compensation in respect of the well to the tune of Rs.10,000/-. The S.L.A.O. at the time of passing award dated 22-09-1986 considered the acquired land as Bagayat and fixed market value @ Rs.42,000/- per Hector. Though the respondent - original claimant in the application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act claimed a sum of Rs.75,000/- towards construction of well, the S.L.A.O. has rejected the same. It is settled principle that once the land is treated as Bagayat for determining the market value of the land then claimant is not entitled to separate compensation towards well. Owner of the land getting water from the well to raise the crops and claiming compensation on the basis of the yield then claimant is not entitled to separate compensation for the well. The Apex Court in the matter of Special Land Acquisition Officer vs. Virupax Shankar Nadagouda reported in (1996) 6 S.C.C. 124 held that if the market value of the acquired land is determined as a Bagayat, in that case, claimant is not entitled to separate compensation towards well. 12. In view of the above mentioned facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that the Reference Court erred in coming to the conclusion that the claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation in respect of the acquired land @ Rs.75,000/- per Hector and a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards well. Therefore, the appeal preferred by the State of Maharashtra is allowed. No order as to costs.