Judgment 1. This appeal is preferred, against judgment and award dated 31.1.1994, passed by the learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Yavatmal (for short “Reference Court”), in Land Acquisition Case No.6 of 1989, by appellant – Rajanna Aguwar, whereby the learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Yavatmal, by its impugned judgment and award, directed the State of Maharashtra to pay enhanced amount of compensation for the acquired land bearing Survey No.18/2 admeasuring 3.50 HR from village Sakhara. The land was acquired for the purpose of viz. “Construction of Percolation Tank” of Sakhara. The notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short, “the Act”), was published on 4.2.1983 and the owner of land had claimed the compensation in the sum of Rs.12,000/- per acre i.e. Rs.30,000/- per hectare. Apart from the compensation, the owner of the land had claimed Rs.10,000/- for 4 stone bandhis and 50 teak trees at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per teak tree. 2. It is not in dispute, that during cross examination, the land owner admitted having cut and fell 50 tick trees and carried away, therefore, there was no claim for compensation in respect of the tick trees, and it was limited to acquire the land. It was claimed that in the year 1982-83 some sale instances occurred at village Sakhara and in Kelapur about two kilometers away from Sakhara. The land admeasuring 1.20 HR was sold for Rs.30,000/-. The claimant had also relied upon subsequent sale transaction which occurred in the year 1985-86 in order to claim enhanced amount of compensation for the land acquired. 3. The learned counsel for the claimant submitted with reference to subsequent sale transaction namely Exhs.64 and 60 to argue that the compensation ought to have been awarded at rate of Rs.30,000/- per hectare for the acquired land considering the subsequent transaction. 4. The learned counsel for the further submitted that for grant of compensation, Section 23 of the Act, mentions about the matter to be considered and he prayed for enhancement of the compensation at least in the sum of Rs.18,000/- to Rs. 20,000/- per hectare on the basis of the average of the said transaction in evidence at Exhs.60 and 64. The learned counsel for the further submitted that for grant of compensation, Section 23 of the Act, mentions about the matter to be considered and he prayed for enhancement of the compensation at least in the sum of Rs.18,000/- to Rs. 20,000/- per hectare on the basis of the average of the said transaction in evidence at Exhs.60 and 64. Under Section 23 of the Act, as applicable to the State of Maharashtra, the market value of the land as on the date of the notification under Section 4 and the use of the land to which it was put on the date of the declaration damage sustained by the person interested when position of the land was taken from him and in consequence of the acquisition of the land needs consideration. The Court determining the amount of compensation to be awarded is obliged to consider the market value of the land on the date of the notification. 5. In the present case, the claimant had placed reliance upon the sale transaction of the year 1981 which was much prior to the notification under Section 4 in the year 1983 in the present case and 2.40 HR of land (6 acres) was sold for Rs.31,000/-. Thus, the rate comes approximately Rs.12,916/- per acre. 6. According to the learned Assistant Government Pleader, the Reference Court considered Exh.64 in paragraph No.11 in the impugned judgment and award. The Reference Court while referring to Exh.64 observed that the sale transaction Exh.64 is from village Chalbardi. This was proved by the claimant by examining Vyankati Narsimlu Erpanwar, who deposed at Exh.62 to prove that 6 acres of land was purchased in the year 1981 for Rs.31,000/-, although according to the said witness village Chalbardi is close to Pandharkawada in comparison with village Sakhara. The witness admitted that his land was Gaonkari with revenue assessment of Rs.6.55. According to the Reference Court, therefore, the land belonging to witness Vyankati Erpanwar had higher rate. According to the he reference Court the land of the claimant had drawback such as the fact that the situation between two hills with water stream by the land of the claimant than the land of the Vyankati Erpanwar which was close to Kelapur to Pandharkawada. According to the he reference Court the land of the claimant had drawback such as the fact that the situation between two hills with water stream by the land of the claimant than the land of the Vyankati Erpanwar which was close to Kelapur to Pandharkawada. However, to my mind the fact that the land was situated by the side of the water stream and between two hills would not be really a drawback although it has to be borne in mind that the land was away from village of Pandharkawada and the claimant’s land was not Gaonkari land. This fact needs to be considered not against the claimant but in respect of his contention for enhancement of the compensation as it was possible to get the land irrigated with natural source of water readily available. 7. Having considered the pros and cons of the claim, particularly bearing in mind that the sale transaction Exh.64 was couple of years prior to the date of notification under Section 4; hence, assuming for the sake of argument that according to the learned Assistant Government Pleader the land was away from village Pandharkawada. The strong plus factor is that there was a water stream by the side of the claimant’s land acquired and it was also situated between two hills. It cannot be considered as minus factor as the fact was not positively considered by the Reference Court. In my opinion at least Rs.1,000/- per acre need to be enhanced. Hence, the claimant would be entitled to claim sum of Rs. 11,000/- per hectare in stead of Rs.10,000/- per hectare as ordered by the Reference Court. 8. In the result, the appeal is, therefore, partly allowed. The impugned judgment and award is modified as under: The reference shall stand allowed with costs with a direction that the respondent - State of Maharashtra, through the Collector, Yavatmal, District Yavatmal, shall pay enhanced amount to the claimant for the acquired land 3.50 HR at the rate of Rs.11,000/- per hectare instead of Rs. 10,000/- per hectare granted along with all benefits, 30% solatium and additional components statutorily payable at rate of 12% per annum on the enhanced compensation amount from the date of notification under Section 4 i.e. 4.2.1983 till the date of award. 10,000/- per hectare granted along with all benefits, 30% solatium and additional components statutorily payable at rate of 12% per annum on the enhanced compensation amount from the date of notification under Section 4 i.e. 4.2.1983 till the date of award. The compensation already paid and received by the claimant shall be deducted and adjusted from the enhanced amount of the modified award. No order as to costs. 9. The appeal thus partly allowed and disposed of accordingly.