Judgment : This appeal arises out of the judgment and award dated 30.11.1996 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Amravati in Land Acquisition Case No.96/1992, whereby the compensation awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer for the lands acquired was enhanced from Rs.45,000/-P.H. to Rs.67,500/-P.H. The State challenges the award. 2] The land bearing survey no.467 admeasuring 3.49 H.R. mouja Warud, district: Amravati was compulsorily acquired for the rehabilitation of flood affected persons, vide notification dated 25.11.1991. The Special Land Acquisition Officer declared award on 24.2.1992. Dissatisfied with the market value fixed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, the land owner/ respondent sought reference. He claimed enhancement in the amount of compensation towards land, fruit bearing trees, two wells , tanks, pipeline and embankments. The learned Reference Court after appreciating the evidence brought on record held that the respondent/ land owner is entitled to compensation @ Rs.67,500/-P.H. 3] Mr. Yengal, learned A G P contended that the evidence brought on record is wholly insufficient to claim any enhancement. The number of sale instances relied upon by the land owner being not proximate from time angle and situational angle, did not support his claim. 4] Mr. Solao, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/land owner, supported the judgment and award. 5] The point that arises for my consideration is: Whether the learned Reference Court was justified in enhancing the amount of compensation from Rs.45,000 to 67,500/-P.H. towards land acquired? 6] The factor that the land was acquired for rehabilitation of flood affected person mainly weighed with the learned Reference Court in allowing marginal enhancement in the amount of compensation fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer. These observations find place in paragraph 9 of the judgment and are reproduced below: “It is not in dispute that land came to be acquired for rehabilitation of the flood affected person and after acquiring land houses came to be built there. The land was selected for the purpose as it was found best or the purpose of constructing houses for rehabilitation of the flood affected persons. Thus, it can be seen that acquired land had very high non-agricultural potentialities, which to my mind has been totally ignored while fixing price of the land. It came to be treated as a dry agricultural land and on that basis sale instances have been collected and price of the land came to be fixed at Rs.45,000/-per hect. Thus, it can be seen that acquired land had very high non-agricultural potentialities, which to my mind has been totally ignored while fixing price of the land. It came to be treated as a dry agricultural land and on that basis sale instances have been collected and price of the land came to be fixed at Rs.45,000/-per hect. The p[rice of the land having non-agricultural potentialities has got much value than agricultural land.” 7] Apart from this a good deal of evidence was adduced in the nature of sale instances to justify enhancement. Learned Reference Court discussed the evidence in paragraph 8 of the judgment. There are sale instances relating to the land under agricultural use as well as the land converted to non agricultural use. One Manohar Mohod had purchased 67 R land from survey no.181/2 for a consideration of Rs.2,26,000/-. This sale instance is dated 19.1.1989. The other sale instance is exhibit 34 in respect of the land area 40 R. It is dated 23.10.1986. This land was sold for Rs.80,000/-. It was brought in the evidence that the acquired land was adjoining to the land sold. In that view of the matter, the learned Reference Court was justified in considering these sale instances, apart from considering the plus factors like land having high non-agricultural potentiality. In that light of the matter, the judgment and award passed by the learned Reference Court granting enhanced amount of Rs.78,525/-appears to be just and proper. therefore, find no merit in this appeal. Appeal is dismissed with costs.