JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal challenges the legality and correctness of the judgment and order dated 25.4.2005 rendered by the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Yavatmal in Land Acquisition Case No.99/2001. 2. Following the Notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act and published on 25.7.1998 proceedings for acquisition of 4.94 hectare of land bearing Survey No.78, situated at village Gimona, Tq. Babhulgaon, District Yavatmal belonging to the appellant was initiated for the purpose of resettlement of village Malapur, Tq. Babhulgaon. The Land Acquisition Officer passed his award under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act on 1.3.1999 determining the market value of the acquired land to be at Rs.33,500/- per hectare. Being not satisfied with the same, the appellant filed a reference application under Section 18 of the Act. 3. It was tried on merits and the Reference Court, relying upon the sale-instance vide Exh.-25 found the market value of the acquired land to be of Rs.86,000/- per hectare as true and correct. Accordingly, as against the claim made for enhancement of compensation at the rate of Rs.2,50,000/- per hectare, the reference application was partly allowed by the Reference Court by the impugned award. Not being satisfied with the same, the appellant is now before this Court in the present appeal. 4. I have heard Shri V.V. Bhangde, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri S.B. Bissa, learned A.G.P. for the respondents. 5. I have gone through the record of the case including the impugned judgment and order. 6. The only point which arises for my determination is : Whether the compensation awarded by the Reference Court is just and proper ? 7. Shri V.V. Bhangde, learned counsel in support of his argument has taken me through the evidence brought on record by the appellant. He submits that this evidence which established the fact that if at all the comparison was to be made, the comparison could have been with the land which was the subject matter of the award passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer vide Exh.-31 and not the saleinstance vide Exh.-25. He submits that this evidence which established the fact that if at all the comparison was to be made, the comparison could have been with the land which was the subject matter of the award passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer vide Exh.-31 and not the saleinstance vide Exh.-25. He submits that the evidence of saleinstance vide Exh.-25, which was in respect of an agricultural land bearing Survey No.15, situated in the interior of village Gimona was only for the purpose of showing that the acquired land, situated just off Yavatmal Babhulgaon Road was capable of fetching much more value than the land situated in the interior. He also submits that there is no consideration of the rate found by the Land Acquisition Officer in his award vide Exh.-31, which was in respect of the land admeasuring 39 R belonging to one Prashant Tated acquired for Telephone Exchange. He submits that this land bearing Survey No.78 was situated just half a kilometer away from the acquired land and that too not on the main road. Thus, he submits that there is sufficient evidence available on record which would justify the enhancement of compensation claimed by the appellant. 8. Shri S.B. Bissa, learned A.P.P. for the State submits that the impugned award is proper because comparison could have been only between two agricultural pieces of land from same village and not between the lands which were from different villages. 9. He submits that the land involved in saleinstance vide Exh.-25 was from the same village and it did not matter that it was situated somewhat inside of the landscape of village Gimona. 10. On going through the evidence available on record, I find it very difficult to accept the submissions made on behalf of the State, rather I would be inclined to consider the argument of learned counsel for the appellant as having great merit in it. 11. It must be noted here that only evidence which is available in the instant case is in the nature of deposition of the appellant as PW 1 and the documents tendered in evidence by the appellant. The respondents did not adduce any independent evidence of their own, although it is the basic responsibility of the State to establish the true market value of the land acquired by it for public purposes. The respondents did not adduce any independent evidence of their own, although it is the basic responsibility of the State to establish the true market value of the land acquired by it for public purposes. This evidence clearly shows that the reliance placed by the appellant on the saleinstance vide Exh.-25 was only for the purpose of establishing the superior quality of the acquired land and not for making a comparison for the purpose of drawing parity between these two lands. It was his submission that if the land situated somewhat inside of the landscape could fetch such value as of Rs.86,000/- per hectare, the land situated at a better place and just off Yavatmal Babhulgaon Road would certainly fetch much more value. I think, the evidence of the appellant on this point needs to be accepted as it is. There is absolutely no cross- examination of the appellant taken by the respondents in this regard. The respondents have not raised any dispute about the land involved in Exh.-25 being situated remotely and in interior areas of village Gimona. Therefore, if any comparison was to be made between these two lands, it should have been made only for the purpose of recording a finding that the acquired land deserved a much better value than the interior land. But, it is seen form the impugned award this is not the case and the Reference Court has even recorded an erroneous finding that the land involved in the saleinstance vide Exh.-25 is situated just adjacent to the acquired land. In fact, the map vide Exh.-26 also supports the contention of the appellant that Exh.-25 land was situated somewhat inside village Gimona and that the acquired land was situated just off the main road. Therefore, I find that the comparison between the acquired land and the land involved in saledeed at Exh.-25 can be made only for finding that the acquired land is better placed and deserves according of higher value than to the land in saledeed vide Exh.-25. In this regard, I would like to place reliance upon the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of V. Hanumantha Reddy (dead) by LRs. In this regard, I would like to place reliance upon the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of V. Hanumantha Reddy (dead) by LRs. vs. Land Acquisition Officer and Mandal R. Officer, reported in (2003) 12 SCC 642, wherein it is held that now it is a well settled principle of law that the land abutting the national highway will fetch far more higher price than the land lying interior. 12. Now, if higher value for the acquired land is to be ascertained and there is no saledeed involving similar land, one of the best methods for doing so would be to place reliance upon the judgments and awards passed in respect of acquisition of lands in same village or neighbouring villages, as held in the case of Mohammad Raofuddin vs. Land Acquisition Officer, reported in (2009) 14 SCC 367 . 13. The appellant has tendered in evidence the award passed by the Special Acquisition Officer (Exh.-31), in respect of acquisition of a piece of land, admeasuring 39 R, situated at village Babhulgaon, from out of Survey No.25/2 belonging to one Prashant Tated. For this piece of land, the Land Acquisition Officer has determined the rate to be at Rs.2,90,000/- per hectare. This land, according to the evidence of PW 1, is situated half a kilometer away from the acquired land. There is nothing in the cross-examination to entertain any doubt about such an assertion made by PW 1. Even a suggestion in the nature of denial of this statement has not been given to PW 1. Therefore, it would have to be accepted that this land involved in the award vide Exh.-31 was situated at a distance of no more than half a kilometer from the acquired land. Then the acquired land is, without any dispute, situated just off Yavatmal Babhulgaon Road, which is not the case with the land acquired vide award at Exh.-31. But, the land under award Exh.-31 was acquired for the purpose of Telephone Exchange. All these facts would show that the acquired land in the instant case can be easily compared with the land involved in award at Exh.-31 and by doing so, I find that both these lands to a greater extent bear similarity with each other. Both have nonagricultural potential and it is almost of the same measure. All these facts would show that the acquired land in the instant case can be easily compared with the land involved in award at Exh.-31 and by doing so, I find that both these lands to a greater extent bear similarity with each other. Both have nonagricultural potential and it is almost of the same measure. However, considering the distance between these two lands, I am of the view that some deduction, at the rate of 15% of the value assigned to the land involved in the award at Exh.-31 would have to be made and if such amount is deducted from the value of that land which is of Rs.2,90,000/- per hectare, the true market value of the acquired land in the instant case would come to Rs.2,46,500/- per hectare, which is rounded off to Rs.2,47,000/- per hectare. In my view, this would be the true and correct market value of the acquired land in the present case. All these aspects of facts and law have not been considered appropriately by the Reference Court and the result is of erroneous determination of the market value of the acquired land. The impugned award, therefore, needs to be modified in the above terms. 14. The appeal is partly allowed. 15. It is declared that the appellant is entitled to receive compensation for the acquired land in the present case at the rate of Rs.2,47,000/- per hectare together with same interest and other benefits as already given in the impugned award. 16. The impugned award stands modified in these terms. 17. The parties to bear their own costs. 18. The respondents shall pay compensation enhanced under this order within three months from the date of order, failing which the appellant shall be at liberty to recover the same through coercive method.