JUDGMENT : This appeal is preferred by the original claimant, being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 09.01.2006 passed in Land Acquisition Case No.111 of 2002 by the 4th Adhoc Additional District Judge, Amravati, as his claim for enhanced amount of compensation towards construction of the well, filed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act came to be rejected. 2. Facts of the appeal can be stated as follows: The respondent has acquired the land admeasuring 0.44 R. out of Gat 1630, situated at village Shirala, Tq. and District-Amravati for the purpose of Amravati to Narkhed railway line. Vide Award dated 06.01.2001, the Land Acquisition Officer granted the compensation of Rs.69,000/- per hectare. Though the well constructed by the appellant was situated in the acquired land, no separate compensation was granted for the said well. Hence, being dissatisfied with the Award, appellant approached the Reference Court, contending interalia that he has constructed the said well, which was 14 feet in diameter and 50 feet in depth. It was constructed in bricks and mortar, by obtaining loan of Rs.7,200/- from Dena Bank. The market value of the said well was Rs.1,50,000/-. However in the Reference before the trial Court, he claimed the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- towards the said well. 3. This reference came to be resisted by the respondents herein denying the very existence of the well in the land acquired by the respondents and hence, there was no question of giving any compensation for the said well. 4. In support of his case, the appellant examined himself at Exh.20 and also examined the Architect and Engineer Rameshchandra J. Karwa at Exh.27 to prove the valuation of the well. Further he also produced on record various documentary evidence. 5. On appreciation of the evidence led by the appellant, Reference Court was pleased to hold that the well was very much in existence in field Gat No. 1630 belonging to the appellant. However, the appellant has not produced on record any evidence to show that the said well was a part and parcel of the acquired land. 5. On appreciation of the evidence led by the appellant, Reference Court was pleased to hold that the well was very much in existence in field Gat No. 1630 belonging to the appellant. However, the appellant has not produced on record any evidence to show that the said well was a part and parcel of the acquired land. The report of Joint measurement taken by the Land Acquisition Officer was not produced before the Reference Court and whatever evidence was produced before the Reference Court was, though proving the existence and construction of well, as it was not proved that the well was part and parcel of the acquired land, the learned Reference Court dismissed the petition filed by the appellant. 6. This judgment of the Reference Court is challenged in this appeal by learned Advocate for the appellant by submitting that more than sufficient evidence was produced on record to show that the well was constructed and it was very much in existence. In addition to that, positive assertion was made by the appellant in his evidence before the Court that the well was in the land acquired by the respondents. It is submitted that the appellant may have failed to produce the report of Joint measurement in the Reference Court, however, in this appeal, it is submitted that the report of joint measurement is filed on record which clearly reveals that the well was in existence in the area admeasuring 0.44 hectare which was acquired from the land bearing Gat No. 1630 belonging to appellant. Hence, it is urged that if this piece of evidence is taken into consideration in the appeal, then the appellant becomes entitled for compensation towards the value of the well. 7. However, as rightly submitted by AGP, the original report of Joint measurement is not produced but only copy of some portion of the Report is produced. Hence, this report cannot be taken into consideration for proving the existence of the well in the acquired land. In view thereof, the finding arrived at by the Reference Court on this aspect cannot be disturbed. As a matter of fact, this was only the issue raised for consideration before the Reference Court and before this Court also. Hence, the appeal needs to be dismissed. 8. In view thereof, the finding arrived at by the Reference Court on this aspect cannot be disturbed. As a matter of fact, this was only the issue raised for consideration before the Reference Court and before this Court also. Hence, the appeal needs to be dismissed. 8. However, at this stage, learned Advocate for the appellant has advanced the submission that the Award under which the land of the appellant was acquired by the Land Acquisition Officer, under the same Award lands of some other occupants of the said village were also acquired. The name of one of the occupants whose land was acquired under the same Award is Dinesh Panjabrao Patil. His name is also appearing in the Award. The Land Acquisition Officer has awarded him in the compensation at the rate of Rs.69,000/- per hectare. It was the same rate which was awarded to the appellant also by the Land Acquisition Officer. It is submitted that Dinesh Panjabrao Patil has filed Reference before the Court for enhancement of the amount of compensation and by the judgment and Award dated 09.01.2006, the Reference Court has enhanced the amount of compensation for his land to the extent of Rs.1,00,000/- per hectare. The respondents herein had challenged the said judgment and award of the Reference Court by filing First Appeal No. 785 of 2008 before this Court and in that appeal, by the judgment and order dated 5.9.2012, this Court has confirmed the said compensation amount and dismissed the appeal preferred by the respondents. It is, therefore, submitted that appellant also becomes entitled to get the same amount of compensation, as his land is situated in the same village and is acquired under the same Award. 9. To substantiate this submission, learned Advocate for the appellant has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ambya Kalya Mhatre (dead) through LRs. And other Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2012(1) Mh.L.J. 9 and Ajay Pal and others Vs. State of Haryana and another reported in 2014(9) Scale 449 . It is urged that even in the absence of any reference or amendment made in the Reference petition claiming enhancement of amount of compensation, this court can award such enhanced amount of compensation, if it is awarded to other claimants whose lands were acquired from the same village and under the same award. 10. It is urged that even in the absence of any reference or amendment made in the Reference petition claiming enhancement of amount of compensation, this court can award such enhanced amount of compensation, if it is awarded to other claimants whose lands were acquired from the same village and under the same award. 10. According to Learned counsel for respondent No.3, the appellant has, in Reference petition, not claimed any enhanced amount of compensation on the count that the Land Acquisition Officer has not valued his property. Hence, this Court should not grant such enhanced amount of compensation, in the absence of any evidence or pleadings to that effect. 11. Therefore, the necessary question raised for consideration in the appeal is whether in the absence of any pleading or amendment being carried out in the petition and in the absence of any evidence, enhanced amount of compensation at the rate of Rs.1,00,000/- per hectare can be awarded to the appellant as the similar amount of compensation was awarded to the claimants whose lands were acquired under the same Award? 12. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above said decision of Ambya Kalya Mhatre (supra) being faced with the similar issue was pleased to hold as follows:- “16...... A landowner, particularly a rural agriculturist, when he loses the land may not know the exact value of his land as on the date of the notification under section 4(1) of the Act. When he seeks reference he may be dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation but may not really know the actual market value. Many a time there may not be comparable sales, and even the Courts face difficulty in assessing the compensation. There is no reason why a landowner who has lost his land, should not get the real market value of the land and should be restricted by technicalities to some provisional amount he had indicated while seeking the reference. As noticed above, the Act does not require him to specify the quantum and all that he is required to say is that he is not satisfied with the compensation awarded and specify generally the grounds of objection to the award. Under the scheme of the Act, it is for the Court to determine the market value. As noticed above, the Act does not require him to specify the quantum and all that he is required to say is that he is not satisfied with the compensation awarded and specify generally the grounds of objection to the award. Under the scheme of the Act, it is for the Court to determine the market value. The compensation depends upon the market value established by evidence and does not depend upon what the landowner thinks is the value of his land. If he has an exaggerated notion of the value of the land, he is not going to get such amount, but is going to get the actual market value. Similarly if the landowner is under an erroneous low opinion about the market value of his land and out of ignorance claims lesser amount, that can not be held against him to award an amount which is lesser than the market value. When the Act does not require the land owner to specify the amount of compensation, but he voluntarily mentions some amounts, and subsequently, if the market value is found to be more than what was claimed, the landowner should get the actual market value. We fail to see why the landowner should get an amount less than the market value, as compensation. Consequently, it follows that if the landowner seeks amendment of his claim, he should be permitted to amend the claim as and when he comes to know about the true market value. When the Act is silent in regard to these matters, to impose any condition to the detriment of an innocent and ignorant landowner who has lost his land, would be wholly unjust”. 3. In para No.17 of its judgment Hon'ble Supreme Court was further pleased to observe that the Collector making the offer of compensation on behalf of state is expected to be fair and reasonable. He is required to offer compensation based on the market value. Unfortunately, Collectors invariably offer an amount far less than the real market value, by erring on the safer side, thereby driving the landowner first to seek a reference and prove the market value before the reference Court and then approach the High Court and many a time the Apex Court, if he does not get adequate compensation. Unfortunately, Collectors invariably offer an amount far less than the real market value, by erring on the safer side, thereby driving the landowner first to seek a reference and prove the market value before the reference Court and then approach the High Court and many a time the Apex Court, if he does not get adequate compensation. It was therefore held that, “it would be adding insult to injury, if the landowner should be tied down to a lesser value claimed by him in the reference application, even though he was not required by law to mention the amount of compensation when seeking reference. The Act contemplates the landowner getting the market value as compensation and no technicalities should come in the way of the landowner getting such market value as compensation”. 14. In para18, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was further pleased to hold that “from the fact that the landowner had sought increase only in regard to the land in the application for reference, will not come in the way of the landowner seeking increase even in regard to trees or structures, before the Reference Court”. 15. The legal position as cristalysed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the authority is thus to the effect that the landowner should get actual market value of the land acquired and no technicalities should come in his way in getting the actual market value. 16. In subsequent decision of Imrat Lal and others Vs. Land Acquisition Collector and others, 2014(9) Scale 446, it was further held that, even if the landowners may not have been able to seek intervention of this Court for grant of enhanced compensation due to illiteracy, poverty and ignorance, they should not be deprived of the benefit of enhanced compensation which is awarded to other landowners from the same village whose lands are acquired under the same Award. Accordingly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to issue direction that those who have not filed special leave petition should also be given enhanced compensation. 17. Thus, it may be seen that trend of the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is to extend benefits of the provisions of this beneficial piece of legislation to those land owners also who have not approached the Court, so that they are not deprived of correct market value. 18. 17. Thus, it may be seen that trend of the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is to extend benefits of the provisions of this beneficial piece of legislation to those land owners also who have not approached the Court, so that they are not deprived of correct market value. 18. In such situation whether the appellant has in this case claimed such amount of compensation in respect of the correct valuation of land or not, it does not make any difference. Here, in the case the fact remains that appellant was not satisfied with the amount of compensation awarded to him and hence, he has filed reference. His grievance was that he had not got the correct and true market value of his land. He might have sought the enhanced compensation on the count that there was well in existence in the acquired land. Assuming that he has failed to prove so, the fact remains that he was not satisfied with the amount of compensation granted to him, as it was not the true and correct market value of the acquired land and if it is so, then it becomes the duty of this court to ensure that he gets such true and correct market value of the land. 19. What can be the true and correct market value of the acquired land of appellant is now set at rest, in view of the decision of Reference Court in respect of the reference made by other land owners whose lands were acquired for the same purpose and under the same Award. In those references, the true and correct market value of the acquired land was considered and it was enhanced to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- per hectare. When the respondent No.3 has challenged the said valuation by preferring various appeals, those appeals came be dismissed. A copy of the said judgment in F.A. No. 785 of 2008, which was filed by respondent No.3 against the landowner Dinesh Panjabrao Patil is produced on record. It shows that Dinesh Panjabrao Patil was awarded the compensation at the rate of Rs.69,000/- by the LAO. It was increased to Rs.1,00,000/- per hectare by the reference Court and said order was confirmed by this Court in its judgment dated 05.09.2012. 20. It shows that Dinesh Panjabrao Patil was awarded the compensation at the rate of Rs.69,000/- by the LAO. It was increased to Rs.1,00,000/- per hectare by the reference Court and said order was confirmed by this Court in its judgment dated 05.09.2012. 20. It is pertinent to note that the compensation awarded to the present appellant by the LAO is at the rate of Rs.69,000/- per hectare. Now if the enhanced amount of compensation at the rate of Rs.1,00,000/- per hectare awarded to the land of Dinesh Patil, by Reference Court is held by this Court as true and correct value of the acquired land, it follows that the appellant should also get the same amount of compensation at the rate of Rs.1,00,000/- per hectare, it being true and correct market value. To this limited extent, the appeal needs to be allowed. 21. Accordingly the appeal is allowed. The compensation amount awarded to the appellant by the LAO is enhanced from Rs.69,000/- per hectare to Rs.1,00,000/- per hectare, along with all the statutory benefits and interest over the enhanced amount.