Judgment All these four appeals are arising out of judgments and awards passed by the Reference Court -Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Amravati in the matter of sought by the land owners under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. These references were sought disputing the compensation awarded for the lands a the public purpose i.e. for establishing Amravati University Campus being L.A.C. No. 87/1987, 09/1987, 15/1987, 7/1989 and 23/1987. 2] Details like survey number, area acquired, compensation awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer are reproduced below in tabular form: SrNo CaseNo. Survey/ Gat No. Totalarea (H.R.) Areaacquired (H.R.) Name of owner Compensationawarded by S.L.A.O. LACNo. Date ofDecision Compensation by Reference court Name of Advocate for Respdt. 1 525/96 525/96 12/212/3 2.432.88 2.432.88 Sou. Shantabai w/o. SachhidanandAgrawal... (Resp). 35,000/- 87/87 24/04/96 1,25,000/-P.H Adv. P.N. & P.P.Kothari, S. Ansari, V.S. Kolhatkar Jagdishraj HarikisanChhabda 2 684/96 28 3.880.34 3.880.34 and others 40,000/-P.H 09/8715/87 18/04/96 1,25,000/-P.H S.V. Bhutada, (village-Mhasla) (Resp) Adv.A.M.Gorde, Surjerao YashvantGhurde & K.S. Narwade, / R1&2 3 20/97 17/3 2.97 2.97 Another (Wadali) ... (Resp) 12,000/-P.H. 7/89 21/12/96 1,50,000/-P.H J.S.Mokadam,J .Y. Ghurde / R.1&2 4 354/97 14/1A 5.26 1.21 Raghunath Krishnrao Tupat and others 45,000/-P.H 23/87 28/4/95 1,50,000/-P.H. Adv. D.S. The land owners / respondents herein relied upon the sale instances as well as the Division Bench decision of this court in case of State of Maharashtra ..vs. Shriram Ganorkar and others reported in 1993 Mh.L.J. 1575 and claimed compensation of Rs.1,50,000/-. The learned Reference Court considering the mate on record, enhanced the amount of compensation to Rs.1,25,000/-in L.A.C. No.87/1987, 9/1987, 15/1987 and Rs.1,50,000/-in L.A.C. No. 7/1989 and 23 State took an exception to these judgments and awards. 3] Mr. Yengal, learned A G P for the State contended that the learned Reference Court was not justified in applying same yardstick without considering the the land. Neither the sale instance relied upon can be called as a comparable sale instance, nor the decision of this court in case of State of Mahara Aniruddha Shriram Ganorkar & ors [supra] can be applied to the lands acquired in the instant reference. 4] Mr. Narwade, learned counsel appearing for the respondents no.1 & 2 in First Appeal No.320/1997, supported the judgments and awards. 4] Mr. Narwade, learned counsel appearing for the respondents no.1 & 2 in First Appeal No.320/1997, supported the judgments and awards. 5] The oral evidence was led to the effect that in the vicinity of the lands acquired there are S.T. Workshop, State Reserve Police Headquarters and its quarters, Poultry Forms and 4 public roads namely Amravati-Mardi Road, Tapowan to Jail Quarters Road, Jail Quarters to Wadali Road and Wadali to Chand Road are passing by the side of these lands. Lands in the vicinity were converted to non agricultural use. Necessary permissions were obtained for changi the land owners in the year 1984. The learned Reference Court after appreciating the evidence observed in paragraph 11 of the judgment in L. A. C. No under: “It is an admitted fact that the village Wadali situated on the South East side of Amravati town and the lands holders of the same vicinity have obtained N.A. from the Competent Authority. The petitioner has produced the true copies of Rev. C. No. NAP 34/82-83/146/Wadali and N.A.P.34/Wadali/142/83-84 to show to acquisition, the land holders have obtained N.A. permission from the Revenue Authority.” 6] Relying upon the decision in case of State of Maharashtra and another ..vs.. Aniruddha Shriram Ganorkar & ors [1993 Mh.L.J. 1575] [Supra] learned Refere quoted the following observations from the said decision. “From the above discussions, it is clear that the prices of land at Mouza Wadali are little on the higher side in comparison to the prices of land at Mhasla bu earlier uniform rate will have to be fixed as lands from either of the villages have been acquired for identical use. Reliance can be placed on sale instance No.2, Mouza Mhasla as well as on Survey No.102/2, of Mouza Wadali both of them being instances within proximity of time angle and also situation angle. Th rate would work out to Rs.55,800/-per acre or Rs.1,39,500/-per hectare. This should be the normal rate of prices prevalent at the time of notification unde was issued. But such a rate would be without any advantage which Survey No.9 has. It has the frontage of two roads and, therefore it is bound to fetch price h the average rate. Th rate would work out to Rs.55,800/-per acre or Rs.1,39,500/-per hectare. This should be the normal rate of prices prevalent at the time of notification unde was issued. But such a rate would be without any advantage which Survey No.9 has. It has the frontage of two roads and, therefore it is bound to fetch price h the average rate. It would, therefore, be proper to fix the price of land Survey No.9 at the rate of Rs.60,000/-per acre or Rs.1,50,000/-per hectare.” 7] Similar issue cropped up before this Court in group of appeals being First Appeal No. 128/1996 and others decided on 4.10.2010. This court was dealin question of compensation awarded relating to lands pertaining to the village Wadali acquired for the similar purpose i.e. Amravati University Campus. observed thus: “The learned counsel for the claimants have rightly claimed higher compensation @ Rs.1,39,500/-for the acquired land of village Wadali and Mhasla on the b observations made by the Division Bench of this Court in paragraph 16 of the judgment reported in 1993 Mh.L.J. 1575. On a reading of the judgment of th Bench it is clear that a uniform rate was fixed by the Division Bench of this Court and the average rate was worked out at Rs.1,39,500/-per hectare. Hen reasons recorded by the Division Bench of this Court in the judgment reported in 1993 Mh.L.J. 1575 it would be necessary to dismiss the first appeals filed b of Maharashtra and allow the first appeals filed by the claimants.” 8] There is no reason to deviate from the view taken by this court [cited supra]. Even otherwise also, ex-facie, market price of the lands fixed @ Rs.1,25 hectare or Rs.1,50,000/-per hectare i.e. Rs.55,000/-to 60,000/-per acre, having regard to the situation of the land, particularly beomg in close proxim Amravati City, appears to be just and reasonable. Otherwise also it is the duty of the State to pay just and reasonable compensation to the land owners wh have been acquired for public purpose. Reference can usefully be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Special Land Acquisition Officer..vs..K and ors.; (2010) 5 Supreme Court Cases 708, wherein it was observed thus: “...The Act has a unique purpose to achieve i.e. fulfillment of various purposes (Projects) to serve the public interest at large, for which the land has been acqu the provisions of this Act by payment of compensation. The power of compulsive acquisition has an inbuilt element of duty and responsibility upon the State compensation which is just, fair and without delay....” It was further observed that, “91. It is a settled rudiment of law that the court, in given facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in mind the potentiality and utility of the land acq award higher compensation to ensure that injustice is not done to the claimants and they are not deprived of their property without grant of fair compensation.. 9] For the reasons stated above, I do not find any merit in these appeals. Appeals are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.