JUDGMENT 1. Claimants in LAC No. 187/1998 are aggrieved by the market value fixed and the compensation determined for their acquired lands and are therefore before this Court in this miscellaneous first appeal seeking enhancement. Lands bearing Sy. No. 423 measuring 7 acres and Sy. No. 420/2 measuring 12 acres 23 guntas of Mahalbagayat, Bijapur, totally measuring 19 acres 23 guntas were the subject matter of reference in LAC No. 187/1998. The preliminary notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published in the Gazette on 17.05.1984. The land was acquired by the 2nd respondent - Bijapur Development Authority, Bijapur, for the purpose of formation of house sites. The Land Acquisition Officer/Assistant Commissioner, Bijapur, passed an award dated 16.09.1986 fixing the market value of the land at Rs. 10,500/- per acre. 2. Aggrieved by the market value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer, claimants sought and secured reference to the Civil Court. Before the Civil Court, claimant No. 2A Mohammadpasha examined himself as P.W. 1 and two other witnesses were examined as PWs.2 and 3. Exs. P1 to P44 were produced and marked on behalf of the claimants. Respondents examined RW. 1-Suresh, an official of the Bijapur Development Authority and RW.2-Laxman, alleged purchaser of a portion of the land comprised in Sy. No. 423. 3. The Reference Court, on consideration of the evidence on record, both oral and documentary, has found that as per the evidence of P.W.1-claimant and as per the document produced in the form of Ex. P10-an authenticated map of national highways i.e., National Highway Nos. 13 and 218 passing through Bijapur District and Ex. P8-map of Bijapur taluk, it was clear that National Highway Nos. 13 and 218 passed in the vicinity of the acquired areas. The Reference Court has also referred to the map of Mahalbagayat issued by the Tahsildar produced as Ex. P11 which disclosed the location of acquired lands surrounded by other lands, roads and the existence of Bijapur fort etc. in the vicinity. The Reference Court also took note of Ex. D3-award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer who has clearly stated regarding the location of the acquired lands surrounded by well developed areas such as HUDCO Colony, Sangolli Rayanna Colony etc., at the time when 4(1) notification was published in the Gazette. 4. in the vicinity. The Reference Court also took note of Ex. D3-award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer who has clearly stated regarding the location of the acquired lands surrounded by well developed areas such as HUDCO Colony, Sangolli Rayanna Colony etc., at the time when 4(1) notification was published in the Gazette. 4. The Reference Court has thus recorded a finding that lands in question had non-agricultural potentiality, even as per the observations made in Ex. D3-award of the Land Acquisition Officer apart from being located close to the National Highways. The Court below has held that the lands in question could not be valued as agricultural lands. However, the Reference Court has proceeded to assess the market value by referring to Ex. D14-judgment and award in LAC No. 1276/1986, wherein the Reference Court had fixed market value of Sy. No. 310 of Mahalbgayat, Bijapur, in respect of 4(1) notification dated 17.10.1982 at Rs. 36,250/- on the ground that the said judgment has been confirmed by this Court in MFA No. 3084/1996. 5. Though the claimants herein placed reliance on another judgment of the reference Court in LAC Nos. 359 and 360/2001 pertaining to the immediately adjoining land, the Reference Court refused to place reliance on the said judgment on the ground that appeal filed against it was pending before this Court in MFA Nos. 7851 and 7852/2007. 6. It is relevant to notice here that in LAC Nos. 359 and 360/2007, lands involved are lands bearing Sy. Nos. 421/1 measuring 30 guntas and 421/2 measuring 5 acres 10 guntas situated at Mahalbagayat, Bijapur. The Reference Court had fixed the market value at Rs. 11/- per sq. ft. taking note of the non-agricultural potentiality and the location of the lands surrounded by the well developed areas. It is also necessary to notice here that the said lands are located immediately abutting the present lands which are subject-matter of these appeals bearing Sy. Nos. 420/2 and 423. It transpires that a Division Bench of this Court by the judgment and decree dated 23.06.2010 has fixed the market value of these adjoining lands involved in LAC Nos. 359 and 360/2007 at Rs. 11.95 per sq. ft. Copy of the judgment of this Court along with the clarificatory order dated 30.06.2010 is produced for our perusal. 420/2 and 423. It transpires that a Division Bench of this Court by the judgment and decree dated 23.06.2010 has fixed the market value of these adjoining lands involved in LAC Nos. 359 and 360/2007 at Rs. 11.95 per sq. ft. Copy of the judgment of this Court along with the clarificatory order dated 30.06.2010 is produced for our perusal. It is clear from the aforementioned judgment of this Court that as regards the adjoining lands, this Court has fixed the market value at Rs. 11.95 per sq. ft. In the instant case, the Reference Court has fixed the market value at Rs. 41,500/- though detailed reference has been made to the location of the lands and the advantages they enjoyed at the time of publication of 4(1) Notification. 7. Even as per the stand taken by the Land Acquisition Officer in his award which is in the nature of an offer, admittedly, the lands were located in well developed areas sandwiched between two national highways apart from well developed lay-out and colonies such as Sangolli Rayanna colony and HUDCO layout. There was absolutely no justification for the Land Acquisition Officer or for the Reference Court to value the land treating them as agricultural lands and by referring to other cases decided by this Court which had no nexus either with the location or with the potentiality of the subject lands. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that the Reference Court misdirected itself in determining the market value of the lands at Rs. 41,500/- per acre. 8. Sri. Manvendra Reddy, learned Government Advocate appearing for respondent No. 1-State and Sri. Ashok R. Kalyanshetty and Sri. S.S. Mamadapur, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 have strongly contended that the judgment in MFA Nos. 7851 and 7852/2007 cannot be made basis for determination of compensation in respect of large extent of lands involved in the present case. 9. In this background, we have examined the matter in greater detail. We find from the judgment in MFA Nos. 7851 & 7852/2007 and connected matters that the acquired lands involved therein are around 6 acres. The 4(1) notification involved in the said case is the same as the one involved in the present case published on 17.05.1984. The acquisition is for the same purpose. We find from the judgment in MFA Nos. 7851 & 7852/2007 and connected matters that the acquired lands involved therein are around 6 acres. The 4(1) notification involved in the said case is the same as the one involved in the present case published on 17.05.1984. The acquisition is for the same purpose. The lands are situated abutting each other and in the said case, the Reference Court itself had fixed the market value at Rs. 11/- per sq. ft. considering the non-agricultural potentiality of the lands and the well developed area which had come up all around. The material on record, particularly, the map of the area discloses that the subject lands are situated close to Bijapur Fort and were part of the City Municipal limits falling in Ward No. 7 of Bijapur City at the time of 4(1) Notification. 10. The market value fixed by this Court for the adjoining lands is accepted by the respondents. In fact, compensation has been paid to the neighbouring land owners by the Bijapur Development Authority. Therefore, viewed from all these angles, we find that the same market value as has been fixed for the adjoining lands by this Court is required to be fixed for the subject lands as well. 11. In land acquisition cases, award passed in respect of comparable lands particularly lands which are acquired under the same notification for the same purpose having same advantages will become valid and acceptable piece of evidence to determine the market value in the connected cases. If parity in determining the market value is not maintained in such cases, it will result in serious prejudice, injustice and discrimination against similarly placed land owners whose lands are acquired against their consent compulsorily. Therefore, as rightly contended by Sri. Anand Sanjay M. Nuli, learned Counsel for the appellant, the judgment rendered by this Court in MFA Nos. 7851 & 7852/2007 and connected matters pertaining to the adjoining lands acquired under the same notification have to be made basis for determining the market value and for awarding compensation in the instant case. If the amount awarded to the neighbouring lands was excess, nothing prevented the respondents from preferring an appeal against the said judgment. 7851 & 7852/2007 and connected matters pertaining to the adjoining lands acquired under the same notification have to be made basis for determining the market value and for awarding compensation in the instant case. If the amount awarded to the neighbouring lands was excess, nothing prevented the respondents from preferring an appeal against the said judgment. Even the extent of land for which compensation is determined, in the instant case, is 7 acres in each of the survey numbers as award is restricted to only 7 acres of land in Sy. No. 423. 12. The contention urged by the learned counsel for the appellants that Ex. D5 could not have been taken note of by the Reference Court to restrict the claim of the appellants only to an extent of 7 acres in Sy. No. 423 and ought to have awarded compensation for the entire 12 acres cannot be accepted because the land over and above 7 acres was de-notified and the dispute with regard to de-notification was subject-matter of a writ petition which has ended in favour of the land owners/claimants. Therefore, the Reference Court has rightly excluded the portion which was de-notified from the purview of determination of market value. Though it is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the said portion de-notified has not been handed over to the claimants, we are not concerned with the same in this appeal. In this regard, we may also refer to the stand taken by the second respondent - Bijapur Development Authority that the said extent of 5 acres of land de-notified is not in their possession. In fact, this submission is made by the learned counsel for the second respondent pursuant to a direction issued by this Court earlier to make its stand clear in this regard. In the light of the discussion made above with regard to the market value of the acquired lands, we allow this appeal. Market value determined by the Reference Court is enhanced and fixed at Rs. 11.95 per sq. ft. payable along with admissible statutory sums and also interest at the rate of 9% from the date of taking over possession of the lands for one year and at 15% for subsequent years, on the enhanced compensation till the date of realization of the entire amount. Appellants are entitled for the costs of this appeal.