JUDGMENT : 1. As both these appeals are counter appeals, arising out of one and same judgment dated 17.12.2005 of the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pandharkawada [Kelapur] in Land Acquisition Case No.205/2002, they are being decided together by this common judgment. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred by their original nomenclature as petitioner-claimant and the respondent. 3. Brief facts of the appeals can be stated as follows: The land bearing Gat No.50, admeasuring 0.95 hectare situated at Gondawakadi was owned by the petitioner-claimant, which came to be acquired by the respondents for Gondwakadi Tank Project, by virtue of notification issued under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, which was published on 05.05.1994 in the Government Gazette. The Special Land Acquisition Officer had, vide his award dated 17.02.1996 granted compensation of Rs.18,000/- per hectare for the acquired land and Rs.5,868/- for One Mango Tree situate therein. 4. Being not satisfied with the said amount of compensation, the petitioner approached the Reference Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, contending inter alia that the actual market value of the acquired land as on the date of notification was far higher than the compensation awarded by S.L.A.O. It was submitted that the land was irrigated with the water from canal (Nala). He was taking various crops therein and earning the net income of Rs.7000/- to Rs.8000/- per acre, per annum. According to the petitioner, the village Gondwakadi is having all the facilities like electricity, Post Office, School etc. and hence, having regard to the fertility, potentiality and productivity of the land, its market value cannot be less than Rs.2,50,000/-. For the Mango Tree, petitioner claimed compensation of Rs.15,000/-. Further according to him, there were 60 Teak Wood Trees, the valuation of which can be Rs.2,50,000/- hence, on this count also he claimed enhanced amount of compensation. 5. This petition came to be resisted by the respondent vide written statement at Exh.10 contending that L.A.O. has considered all the relevant factors for determining the market value of the acquired land. It was denied that the compensation awarded by the S.L.A.O. was inadequate or meagre in any way. The existence of Teak Wood Trees in the acquired land is also denied by the respondents. It was denied that the compensation awarded by the S.L.A.O. was inadequate or meagre in any way. The existence of Teak Wood Trees in the acquired land is also denied by the respondents. Respondents, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the petition on the ground that compensation as claimed was unrealistic and based upon imaginary grounds. 6. On these respective pleadings of the parties, the Reference Court framed necessary issues for its consideration at Exh.11. In support of their case the petitioner Mirza Niyajali Beg examined himself and that was the only oral evidence adduced in the case, apart from the certified copies of the judgment in other reference petitions, which were relied upon by the petitioner, coupled with the 7/12 extract of the land. 7. On appreciation of this evidence, the learned Reference Court was pleased to enhance the compensation for the acquired land from Rs.1800/- to Rs.75,000/- per hectare. The Reference Court however, rejected the claim for enhancement of compensation for Mango Tree. 8. Being not satisfied with this enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Reference Court, the claimants have preferred the appeal bearing First Appeal No.334/2006, whereas being aggrieved by the enhancement of the compensation granted by the Reference Court, the respondents have also challenged the impugned judgment, by filing First Appeal No.1405/2009. 9. The only issue therefore, which necessarily arises for my determination in these appeals is whether the Reference Court was justified in enhancing the amount of compensation and the enhanced amount of compensation is just reasonable and correct or warrants interference therein? 10. As stated above, the only oral as well as documentary evidence is that of the claimant. According to him, his land was irrigated and having good potentiality and fertility. However, the 7/12 extract of the land does not show any source of irrigation like the well, water pump or pipe line. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner was irrigating his land from the water of canal with the help of oil engine pump. Even the entries of the crops in the 7/12 extract show that the dry crops like cotton, tur and jowar were cultivated in the acquired land. Therefore, in the absence of evidence on record it has to be held that the acquired land was dry crop land. 11. Even the entries of the crops in the 7/12 extract show that the dry crops like cotton, tur and jowar were cultivated in the acquired land. Therefore, in the absence of evidence on record it has to be held that the acquired land was dry crop land. 11. The petitioner-claimant has then relied upon the three judgments of the Reference Court in respect of the adjoining lands. The first judgment pertains to the land situate at village Dhoki, which was belonging to one Omprakash and according to the petitioner, this land of Omprakash was adjoining to his land and was of the same quality. As per the judgment of the Reference Court, certified copy of which is produced on record at Exh.49, the Reference Court has awarded compensation for this land at the rate of Rs.2,07,800/- per hectare. However, in my considered opinion the Reference Court has rightly refused to accept this judgment as comparable instance, having regard to the fact that the land acquired there in was from village Dhoki and there is nothing on record to show that it was adjoining to the acquired land of petitioner. The certified copy of village map of Gondwakadi Exh.53 is also sufficient to show that acquired land of petitioner is far away from the border of village Dhoki. Moreover, the said land was acquired for the purpose of a bridge of the National Highway No.7, which fact itself was suggestive that the said land was just abutting the National Highway. In the said judgment it was also considered that the National Highway passes through the acquired land of Omprakash. It was also considered that there were developed plots in the acquired land of Omprkash and hence, having regard to all these factors, especially the potential and the purpose for which the said land was acquired, the Reference Court has rightly refused to accept the same as base for awarding compensation at the same rate to the petitioner. 12. The other two judgments of the Reference Court on which the petitioner has relied upon pertain to the lands at village Gondwakadi. The first judgment of Reference Court, certified copy of which is produced on record at Exh.50 shows that it was in respect of acquisition of the land bearing Gat No.51, which was belonging to Syed Allem Shah and it was adjoining to the acquired land of the petitioner bearing Gat No.50. The first judgment of Reference Court, certified copy of which is produced on record at Exh.50 shows that it was in respect of acquisition of the land bearing Gat No.51, which was belonging to Syed Allem Shah and it was adjoining to the acquired land of the petitioner bearing Gat No.50. It was on record that both the lands were dry crop lands. Similarly, another land bearing Gat No.52, which was belonging to Haleem Shah was also adjoining to Gat No.51 and hence adjacent to petitioner's land. The certified copy of the judgment in respect of that land, which is produced at Exh.51, also shows that it was a dry crop land and acquired for the same project under the same notification. 13. As all these three lands including the land of the petitioner were having more or less the same potential and being in the vicinity, the judgments in respect of those two lands are relevant for ascertaining the market value of the acquired land. It can be seen that in those judgments the compensation was awarded at the rate of Rs.70,000/- per hectare. There was nothing on record, not even any suggestion, that the respondents had challenged the said rate of compensation, by preferring the appeals against those judgments. Hence, both these judgments, the certified copies of which, were produced at Exh.50 and 51, were rightly considered by the Reference Court as base for arriving at the market value of the acquired land. 14. The perusal of the judgment of the Reference Court goes to show that Reference Court has also considered that from the map of acquired land Exh.50 it was evident that petitioner's land is nearer to gaothan of village Gondwakadi, whereas the lands of above said two judgments of the Reference Court were somewhat away from the gaothan and hence, Reference Court held that the land of petitioner was having the nonagricultural potential. The Reference Court has hence held that market value of the petitioner's land was comparatively higher and enhanced it to Rs.70,000/- per hectare. 15. The Reference Court has hence held that market value of the petitioner's land was comparatively higher and enhanced it to Rs.70,000/- per hectare. 15. While arriving at this rate of compensation the Reference Court has also considered the evidence of the claimant showing that he was earning net income of Rs.7000/- to Rs.8000/- per acre, which appeared to be excessive and hence, taking into consideration its location and the fact that it was a dry crop land, the Reference Court considered the net reasonable income of Rs.3000/- to Rs.3100/- per acre and accordingly arrived at the finding that even if the capitalization method is applied for assessing the market value of the acquired land, then it comes to Rs.76,570/- per hectare. 16. Thus after taking into consideration all the relevant factors and applying both the methods of assessing the correct amount of compensation, namely the capitalization method, which is based on the income from the yield of the agricultural land and the earlier decided judgments of the Reference Court, the Tribunal has arrived at the just and fair amount of compensation as Rs.75,000/- per hectare. Absolutely nothing new is brought on record to show that the said amount of compensation is in any way excessive or meagre and therefore, no interference is warranted therein, either at the instance of the petitioner or at the instance of the respondents. 17. Even as regards the claim of the petitioner for enhanced amount of compensation for Mango Tree at the rate of Rs.15,000/-, the Reference Court rightly held that there was no cogent and convincing evidence to enhance said valuation. The petitioner has also failed to produce on record evidence to prove existence of Teak Wood Trees in the acquired land. In the 7/12 extract there is no mention of the Teak Wood Trees. Hence, the Reference Court has rightly rejected the claim of the petitioner for compensation for Teak Wood Trees. 18. The petitioner has also failed to produce on record evidence to prove existence of Teak Wood Trees in the acquired land. In the 7/12 extract there is no mention of the Teak Wood Trees. Hence, the Reference Court has rightly rejected the claim of the petitioner for compensation for Teak Wood Trees. 18. At this stage learned A.G.P. points out that in the operative part of the judgment, the Reference Court has directed the respondents to pay interest on the amount of compensation and also the excess amount of compensation at the rate of Rs.9% per annum from the date after 15 days of the notice under Section 9(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, for the first year and then at the rate of 15% per annum for subsequent period till the date of deposit of such excess amount in the Court under Section 28 and 34 respectively of the Land Acquisition Act. The learned A.G.P. has rightly submitted that both these directions being legally not tenable they need to be set aside. To this limited extent only interference is warranted in the impugned judgment. 19. As a result, the appeal filed by the petitioner-claimant bearing First Appeal No.334/2006 stands dismissed. The First Appeal No.1405/2009 filed by the respondent/State is partly allowed to the extent of modifying the direction given in the order by the Reference Court and it is held that the petitioner-claimants are entitled for the interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the possession for first year and at the rate of 15% per annum for subsequent period till realization of the amount. In theses circumstances, there is no order as to costs.