Judgment By this appeal, the State of Maharashtra challenges the judgment passed by the reference Court on 23/6/1994 awarding compensation to the respondent for the acquired land at the rate of Rs.1,00,000/per hector and Rs.40,000/for the well. 2] The land of the respondent situated at village Rajura Bazar, Taluka Warud, District Amravati was acquired by the State of Maharashtra for rehabilitation of the people of Chinchgavan village. The section 4 notification was issued on 7th of November 1991. The Land Acquisition Officer passed the award and granted the compensation to the respondent at the rate of Rs.40,500/-per hector. The respondent was dissatisfied with the grant of compensation at that rate and therefore, filed a reference application, seeking enhanced amount of compensation on 24/4/1992. The reference Court enhanced the amount of compensation by the judgment dated 23/6/1994. The same is challenged by the State by filing this appeal. 3] Mr. Lonare, the learned A.G.P. appearing on behalf of the State, submitted that the reference Court had erred in holding that the reference application was filed within the prescribed period of limitation by considering that the award was passed on 27/2/1992 and the reference was presented on 24/4/1992. The learned A.G.P. submitted that the reference Court could not have reckoned the period of limitation from the date of passing of the award as the respondents were served with the notice under section 12 (2) before 11/3/1992 and not on 11/3/1992 as stated by the claimant in his evidence. The next contention is that in any case the grant of compensation to the respondents at the rate of Rs.1,00,000/-per hector for the acquired land is on extremely higher side. The learned A.G.P. submitted that the reference Court was also not justified in granting separate compensation of Rs.40,000/for the well as it is a settled position of law that separate compensation cannot be granted for the land and well when the claimant claims compensation for the land by treating that he is irrigating the same with the help of well water. 4] The matter was heard by this Court on 6.12.2010 and on the point of limitation, it was observed: “Though the question of limitation was not raised by the State in the appeal memo, since the reference Court has not decided the issue of limitation by computing the period from the date of receipt of the section 12(2) notice and not from the date of passing of the award in this case, and since this court is inclined to remand the matter to the reference Court to reconsider the issue of limitation after granting an opportunity to the parties to tender the evidence on the said issue, it would not be necessary for this Court to decide the other points for determination in this case.” 5] In pursuance of the aforesaid directions, the learned Reference Court issued notices to the parties and recorded their evidence. On the basis of evidence the learned Reference Court held that: “Except the copy of Roznama at Exh.7, no other document is produced on record by the respondents to show that really the notice under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act was received by the petitioners on 4.3.1992. The copy of Roznama is not at all sufficient to say that notice under section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act was received by the petitioners on 4.3.1992. Nothing is on record that notice under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act was served upon the petitioners. In absence of evidence of the respondents on this point, there is no reason to disbelieve the oral version of P.W.1 that, he received notice under Section 12(2) on 11.3.1992.” 6] Aforesaid finding of fact is based on the evidence brought on the record, leaving no scope for taking different view in the matter. Thus, first ground of limitation raised by learned A G P does not survive. 7] Before the Reference Court, evidence was adduced to the effect that the village Rajura Bazar where the land is situated is on Pulgaon-Amla and on Warud-Chinchargavan road. The population of village Razura Bazar is ten thousand. There is a Junior College and Warud Taluka Headquarter is just at a distance of 3 k.m. from this village. Purpose of land acquisition was settlement of village Chinchargavan, that means land was to be used for the non agricultural purpose. The population of village Razura Bazar is ten thousand. There is a Junior College and Warud Taluka Headquarter is just at a distance of 3 k.m. from this village. Purpose of land acquisition was settlement of village Chinchargavan, that means land was to be used for the non agricultural purpose. Evidence was also given to the effect that the acquired land was irrigated and fertile. It has a facility of well. Adjoining lands have been converted into nonagricultural use, in the year 1987. The plots demarcated in the adjoining land fetched Rs.25 per square feet. Sale instances are at Exhibit 22, 23 and 24. The claimants also relied upon the testimony of Wasudeo Surduse who is the owner of the adjoining land. He had converted his land into nonagricultural use and sold plots. The other witness examined by the claimants is Waljibhai Patel who had purchased the land from Waman Dafe, out of survey no.36/2 of village Rajura Bazar. He purchased 25 R land for Rs.25,000/-and for levying stamp duty on this sale transaction value assumed was Rs.28,000/. He was justified in deposing that at the relevant time, the market price of the land was more than Rs.1,00,000/-per hectare. The learned Reference Court after perusing Exhibit 5 which is the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer in respect of acquired land bearing survey no.62 situated in village Razura Bazar, observed that: “From perusal of Award Exh.5 rate per hectare of the acquired land survey NO.62 of Rajura Bazar is shown at Rs.1,12,000/-per hectare. Land revenue assessment of this land is about 565 and the land revenue of acquired land S.No.190 is at about 615. So naturally, Land Acquisition Officer while considering compensation ought to have arrived to the conclusion that price of land should have been assessed more than Rs.1,12,000/-per hectare. But admittedly, Land Acquisition Officer has granted compensation at Rs.40,500/-per hectare i.e. Rs.16,200/per Acre.” 8] It is thus obvious that on the basis of the overwhelming evidence, the learned Reference Court assessed the market value of the land at Rs.1,00,000/-per hectare or Rs.40,000/per acre. No fault can be found with the findings recorded by the learned Reference Court. 9] As regards grant of compensation of Rs.40,000/-towards well which was in the acquired land, it may be noted that the Special Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation of Rs.26,943/on this count. No fault can be found with the findings recorded by the learned Reference Court. 9] As regards grant of compensation of Rs.40,000/-towards well which was in the acquired land, it may be noted that the Special Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation of Rs.26,943/on this count. The Reference Court, on the basis of evidence of one Gopal Chimote a Civil Engineer, determined the value of well at Rs.40,000/. As per the evidence of Gopal Chimote, the depth of well was about 60 feet and diameter 34 feet. The level of water in the well was 3 to 4 feet deep. Considering all these factors valuation of the well by the expert was made at Rs.55,389/-. Instead of accepting in to the said valuation, the Reference Court Granted Rs.40,000/-In that light of the matter, the appeal lacks merits. 10] The appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.