Judgment: These five appeals have been preferred by the State of Maharashtra / acquiring body against the common judgment and award dated 30.1.2001 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Yavatmal in L.A.C. No.46/1992, 47/1992, 48/1992, 50/1992, 52/1992 enhancing the quantum of compensation from Rs.7500/- P.H. to Rs.15,000/- P.H. 2] Lands situated in village Rajur were compulsorily acquired for the public purposes i.e. for Rajur Irrigation Tank Project at village Rajur, taluka Kalamb, district Yavatmal vide notification dated 4.9.1988. On 6.10.1988 award was declared by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. Dissatisfied with the inadequate compensation awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer the land owners sought references. Evidence in the nature of previous sale instances and also income derived from land was adduced. Considering the same, the learned Reference Court fixed market value of the lands acquired @ Rs.15,000/- P.H. i.e. less than Rs.6000/- per acre. This is being objected to in these appeals. 3] Learned A G P criticised the judgment and award mainly on the ground that enhancement was awarded without any evidence. 4] None appeared for the land owners / respondents. 5] Point that arises for my determination is: Whether the compensation awarded by the Reference Court calls for any interference? 6] The learned Reference Court relied upon the sale instances produced at Exhibit 26, 27, 41. All these sale instances are proximate from time angle and situation angle and were rightly relied upon by the learned Reference Court. It would be suffice to quote below the reasons recorded by the learned Reference Court in paragraph 30 of the judgment: “30-At the cost of repetition I would like to state that if the sale instances Ex. 26 & 27 is accepted to be true then it become crystal clear that land under sale instance Ex. 41 was sold at the rate of Rs.5000/- per acres which is equivalent to 12500/- per hectare. However, this sale instance is pertaining to the year 1984 i.e. it is dated 2.5.1984. However, the date of notification U/s 4 in the instant case before us is 4.8.86, thus there is time gap of 2 ½ years between the sale transactions Ex.41 and the date of notification U/s 4 which took place on 4.8.86. However, this sale instance is pertaining to the year 1984 i.e. it is dated 2.5.1984. However, the date of notification U/s 4 in the instant case before us is 4.8.86, thus there is time gap of 2 ½ years between the sale transactions Ex.41 and the date of notification U/s 4 which took place on 4.8.86. Therefore, if the increase in price rate of Rs.1000/-per hectare per year is taken into consideration then certainly the market price would have increased at the rate of Rs.2500/- per hectare, during the time gap of this 2 ½ years. If it is so then the market value of the acquired land of the claimants on the date of notification on 4.8.86 can be calculated at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per hectare.” 7] Even otherwise, also, awarding compensation just @ Rs.6000/- per acre for the land compulsorily acquired in the year 1988, which is not far away from the District & Taluqa Headquarters in no circumstance appear on higher side. 8] Accordingly appeals are dismissed with costs. 9] In case there is any deposit made by the appellant, the Registry or the Reference Court, as the case may be, shall disburse the amount forthwith and in any event within 3 months from the date of this order. If required, intimation be given. In the event of any withdrawal was permitted during the pendency of the appeal on furnishing undertaking or security, undertaking or security, as the case may be, shall stand discharged.