Judgment All these five appeals [F.A. No.663/1994, 664/1994, 675/1994, 685/1994 and 256/1995] are arising out of the award passed by the Reference Court [in Reference Case Nos.36/1988, 26/1988, 34/1988, 35/1988 and 23/1988, respectively], dismissing the references filed by the claimants/ appellants. Since the references were arising out of common award passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer in Land Acquisition Case No. LAQ/82-83, these appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2] The lands of the appellants were acquired for Vyagara Nala Project under Water Irrigation Scheme in District: Buldhana. 3] Details of the lands acquired and compensation awarded etc. are reproduced in a tabular form as under: Date of AwardOrder passedby Special Land Acquisition Officer Reference L.A.C. No. Date of award passed by the Reference Court Survey No. Area acquired Compensationgranted by L.A.O. 19.9.1987 36/8 16.7.1994 5(3) 81 R 8000/-per hectare forjirayat land 200/-per hectare for potkharab land 19.9.1987 26/88 16.7.1994 1112/1 85 R40 R 10000/-per hectare 19.9.1987 34/88 16.7.1994 47/3 97 R 10000/-per hectare 19.9.1987 35/88 16.7.1994 41/2 1.95 HR 8000/-per hectare forjirayat land 19.9.1987 23/88 14.7.1994 26 85 R 8000/-per hectare forjirayat land 200/-perhectare for potkharab land 4] Dissatisfied with the award passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, the references were made to the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Buldhana. The references were dismissed by the learned Reference Court. Aggrieved by the order rejecting references, the appellants have filed these appeals. 5] Mr. S.R. Deshpande, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that the approach of the Reference Court is fully erroneous in fixing the market value of the land acquired. Despite the overwhelming evidence adduced by the appellants, the learned Reference Court ignored the same. The sale instance relied upon by the appellants was ignored by the learned reference court. He further contended that the lands acquired had a facility of irrigation and perennial source of well water. All these factors have been ignored by the learned Reference Court. Appellants claimed compensation @ Rs.20,000/-per hectare for Jirayat portion of their land and Rs.200/-per hectare for Potkharab land. 6] The learned A.G.P. supported the award passed by the learned Reference Court. It is contended that no evidence has been produced by the appellants to justify any enhancement. The sale instance relied upon by the appellants was rightly ignored by the Reference Court for the reason that it was not proved. 6] The learned A.G.P. supported the award passed by the learned Reference Court. It is contended that no evidence has been produced by the appellants to justify any enhancement. The sale instance relied upon by the appellants was rightly ignored by the Reference Court for the reason that it was not proved. It is therefore, submitted that the decision rendered by the learned Reference Court cannot be interfered with. 7] The point which arise for my consideration is as under: Whether the appellants are entitled for enhanced amount of compensation, if yes, at what rate? 8] The appellants relied upon the sale instance in between Fulsing and Kishor on one hand and Kanulal Agrawal on the other. It was regarding the transaction of the agricultural land situated in village Urha. The sale instance is dated 16.4.1980. Two acres land fetched Rs.20,000/-. The evidence was led before the Reference Court that the lands of the appellants were of far superior quality than the land under the transaction dated 16.4.1980. It was suggested to appellants that the transaction between Kanulal and Fulsing was money lending. The suggestion was denied. It is very strange to observe that the learned Reference Court discarded this evidence on the ground that neither the vendor nor the vendee or any of the attesting witnesses to the sale deed, were examined. Despite this, the learned Reference Court went on distinguishing the land covered under the sale instance and the land acquired. According to him, the land covered under the sale instance dated 16.4.1980 had a perennial source of water. There appears to be incorrect misreading of the recitals in the sale deed. What is mentioned in the sale deed is that in a Gat No.54 there is a well and the vendor had 1/4th share of drawing water from this well to irrigate the land covered under the sale deed. The learned Reference Court was further wrong in ignoring the sale instance on the ground that vendor, vendee or any of the attesting witnesses was not examined. The learned Reference Court lost sight of the fact that the issue before it was not that of title of the land, but only of comparing the market value of the land which was prevailing at a particular time. The learned Reference Court lost sight of the fact that the issue before it was not that of title of the land, but only of comparing the market value of the land which was prevailing at a particular time. Even apart, in Land Acquisition Case No.34/1988 Dnyanoba while referring to the sale deed deposed that “Original sale deed is brought by me. The copy filed is at Article A.” Apart from that, the State has filed First Appeal No.578/1991, against the judgment passed in L.A.C. No.27/1988 in which the claimant had proved the same sale deed vide Exh.27 and this court held that the sale instance dated 16.4.1980 is reliable. In that light of the matter, the learned Reference Court was absolutely wrong in ignoring the sale instance dated 16.4.1980. It is pertinent to note that the notification under section 4 was issued on 10.2.1983, whereas the sale instance is dated 16.4.1980 i.e. more than 3 years prior to the issue of notification. 9] The appellants had also placed reliance on the decision in Land Acquisition Case No.29/1988 decided on 30.4.1991 by the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Buldhana. It was in respect of the land acquired from the same village i.e. Urha for the purposes of Medium Project, Khamgaon. The date of notification in that case appears to be same. The learned Land Acquisition Officer had fixed the same value i.e. Rs.8000/-per hectare for Jirayat land. The learned Reference Court enhanced the amount of Compensation to Rs.16,000/-per hectare for Jirayat land [i.e. Rs.6000/-per acre]. The learned Reference Court while dealing with this contention, observed that: “The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the claimant drew my attention on certified copy of judgment passed in L.A.C.No.29/88 and argued before me that the then learned Jt. Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) granted compensation of Rs.18,240/-@ Rs.16,000/-per Hectare for an area of 1 Hectare and 14 R. Therefore, according to him, considering that judgment in this case also, the compensation as claimed by the claimant can be awarded. Certified copy of the judgment is produced in L.A.C. No.34/88. It appears from the certified copy that it was irrigated land to which the compensation @ Rs.16,000/-per hectare was awarded by the then learned Jt. Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), by his order Dt. 30.4.91. Saleinstance of the similar property was considered while fixing the value. Certified copy of the judgment is produced in L.A.C. No.34/88. It appears from the certified copy that it was irrigated land to which the compensation @ Rs.16,000/-per hectare was awarded by the then learned Jt. Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), by his order Dt. 30.4.91. Saleinstance of the similar property was considered while fixing the value. In the present case the sale instance of the land which is similar to that of the claimant, though produced on record is not duly proved.” 10] The observations are not consistent with the evidence on record. In fact in Land Acquisition Case No.27/1988, the decision of which was relied upon in the present reference, the Reference Court in that case [i.e. L.A.C.No. 27/1988] has rightly observed that: “The market-price of the claimant's land which has claimed @ Rs.16,000/-per hectare is itself a meager price. Because 1 hectare land means a 2 acres and 20 gunthas land and no where in the State now even court can take judicial notice, the price of any land is not less than near about Rs.10,000/-per acre. If the situation of the year 1987 will be taken into consideration on the date of notification. Then it was not at all below the rate of Rs.9,000/-per acre. Any way from all these facts one can gather very easily that the price claimed by the claimant i.e. of Rs.16,000/-per hectare i.e. for a land of 2 acres and 20 gunthas is a meager price and hence this court has no hesitation as to grant the claim of the claimant in toto.” 11] This Court in First Appeal No.578/1991 arising out of Reference Case No.27/1988, in respect of the lands acquired vide notification dated 10.2.1983 affirmed the award passed by the Reference Court, wherein the compensation @ Rs.16,000/-per hectare was awarded. In that, reliance was placed on the same sale instance dated 16.4.1980. 12] Thus, considering the sale instance which was wrongly ignored by the learned Reference Court and the fact that in similarly situated case the compensation @ Rs.16,000/-and Rs.18000/-per hectare [i.e. Rs.6000/-and 7200/-per acre] was awarded in First Appeal No.578/1991, the present appellants are entitled for the same rate of compensation by way of enhancement. So far as First Appeal No.675/1994 is concerned, since there was perennial source of water the amount awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer @ Rs.10000/-per hectare has to be enhanced to Rs.18000/ -[i.e.7200/-per acre]. So far as First Appeal No.675/1994 is concerned, since there was perennial source of water the amount awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer @ Rs.10000/-per hectare has to be enhanced to Rs.18000/ -[i.e.7200/-per acre]. 13] In that light of the matter, the appeals partly succeed. 1] First Appeals Nos. 663/1994, 664/1994, 675/1994, 685/1994 & 256/1995 are partly allowed. 2] In so far as First Appeals Nos. 663/1994, 664/1994, 685/1994 & 256/1995 are concerned, the amount awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer @ Rs.8000/-& 10000/-per hectare is enhanced to Rs.16,000/-per hectare [i.e. Rs.6000/-per acre] . 3] In so far as First Appeal No.675/1994 is concerned the amount awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer @ Rs.10000/-per hectare is enhanced to Rs.18000/-[i.e.7200/-per acre]. 4] All the appellants in the above appeals would be entitled to additional solatium, additional component and interest on the enhanced quantum of compensation. 5] Award be drawn up accordingly. 6] No order as to costs.