JUDGMENT : 1. Since both these appeals filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “the said Act”) raise challenge to the common judgment of the Reference Court dated 10.1.2003, they are being decided by this common judgment. 2. In First Appeal No. 356 of 2003, land admeasuring 2 hectare 2 gunthas from land survey number 135 of mouza Khelbabuji came to be acquired for construction of MSRTC's Bus Depot. Notification under Section 4 of the said Act was issued on 13.12.1983 and the Land Acquisition Officer passed his Award on 21.1.1988. This Award was communicated to the appellants on 5.2.1988 after which Reference came to be preferred by them on 11.3.1988. The Reference Court dismissed the proceedings on the ground that the Reference was barred by limitation. 3. In First Appeal No. 310 of 2003, land admeasuring 1 hectare from field survey number 135 was also acquired under the same notification for the same purpose. The Reference Application was dismissed on the same count as being barred by limitation. 4. Shri S. D. Dharaskar, learned counsel for the appellants in first Appeal No. 356 of 2003 and Shri H. D. Futane, learned counsel for appellant in First Appeal No. 310 of 2003 made twofold submissions, viz. (i) The Reference having been made by the appellants before the Collector on 11.3.1988 and the proceedings having been registered with the Reference Court on 19.3.1988, the Reference Court was not justified in rejecting the said applications on the ground that the same were barred by limitation. It was submitted that the Reference Applications had been moved within a period of six weeks from 5.2.1988 when the notice was received under Section 12 (2) of the said Act. The Reference Applications were, therefore, within limitation, and (ii) Sale transaction dated 8.4.1983 with regard to 1 hectare land from the same field survey number @ Rs. 82,500/per hectare was produced on record. By this transaction, the appellants in First Appeal No. 356 of 2003 had sold the aforesaid land to the appellant Society in First Appeal No. 310 of 2003. Considering the purpose for which the land was acquired, the appellants were entitled for compensation @ Rs.100,000/per hectare as prayed in the appeals. 5. Shri M. Ekre, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondents no. Considering the purpose for which the land was acquired, the appellants were entitled for compensation @ Rs.100,000/per hectare as prayed in the appeals. 5. Shri M. Ekre, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondents no. 1 and 2, on the other hand, submitted that the Reference Court was justified in rejecting the proceedings as being barred by limited. It was submitted that as per roznama maintained in the proceedings, the reference applications were filed on 19.8.1988 which were beyond the period of limitation. It was further submitted that the Reference Court rightly refused to consider the prayer for enhancement in the amount of compensation on the ground that the evidence in that regard was insufficient. He, therefore, sought for dismissal of the appeals. 6. With the assistance of learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the record of the case. I have given due consideration to their respective submissions. The following points arise for consideration: (i) Whether the reference proceedings were filed within the prescribed period of limitation ? (ii) If the reference proceedings are filed within limitation, whether the appellants are entitled for enhancement in the amount of compensation ? 7. As to Point No. (i) : It is not in dispute that the Award of the Land Acquisition Officer is dated 20.1.1988. It is further not in dispute that this Award was communicated to the appellants on 4.2.1988. As per the provisions of Section 18 (2) (b) of the said Act, an application for reference is required to be made to the Collector within six weeks of the receipt of notice under Section 12 (2) of the said Act. In the present case, it is not in dispute that such notice was received by the appellants on 4.2.1988. Under the provisions of Section 18 (1) of the said Act, any person interested, who has not accepted the Award, has to make a written application to the Collector for referring the matter to the Court. As per the document at Exhibit 6 in both the proceedings, the Special Land Acquisition Officer had issued a communication to the District & Sessions Judge, Amravati dated 18.8.1988 in which it has been specifically stated that the applications for reference were received by his office on 11.3.1988. As per the document at Exhibit 6 in both the proceedings, the Special Land Acquisition Officer had issued a communication to the District & Sessions Judge, Amravati dated 18.8.1988 in which it has been specifically stated that the applications for reference were received by his office on 11.3.1988. Considering the requirements of Section 18 (2) (b) of the said Act read with Section 19 thereof, I find that the reference applications were made within the prescribed period of limitation from the date of communication of the Award. The learned Judge of the Reference Court has not referred to the communication at Exhibit 6 and has merely referred to the roznama to come to the conclusion that the reference applications were filed beyond limitation. Point no. (i) stands answered accordingly. 8. As to Point No. (ii) : Insofar as the claim for enhancement of compensation is concerned, the sale instance with regard to sale of 1 hectare of land from field Gat No. 135 dated 8.4.1983 is on record. As per this sale instance, land admeasuring 1 hectare from the said survey number was sold for Rs. 82,500/by the appellants in First Appeal No. 356 of 2003 to the appellant Society in First Appeal No. 310 of 2003. This transaction is much prior to the issuance of Notification under Section 4 of the said Act. Considering the fact that the sale instance on record is in relation to land admeasuring 1 hectare from the same survey number, it can be taken into consideration for determination of the compensation. 9. It is to be noted that the lands were acquired for the purpose of construction of a Bus Depot which would indicate that the land was situated abutting the main road, thus, having nonagricultural potentiality. The land was purchased by the appellant Society in FA No. 310 of 2003 for the purpose of sale of plots. Considering these factors and after taking into consideration the date of sale deed which is 8.4.1983, I find that the amount of Rs. 90,000/per hectare would be fair compensation for the acquired land. Point no. (ii) is answered accordingly. 10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, following order is passed: Order (i) The judgment of the Reference Court dated 10.1.2003 in Land Acquisition Petition No. 19 of 1994 and Land Acquisition Petition No. 20 of 1994 is quashed and set aside. 90,000/per hectare would be fair compensation for the acquired land. Point no. (ii) is answered accordingly. 10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, following order is passed: Order (i) The judgment of the Reference Court dated 10.1.2003 in Land Acquisition Petition No. 19 of 1994 and Land Acquisition Petition No. 20 of 1994 is quashed and set aside. (ii) It is held that the appellants are entitled for compensation for the acquired land @ Rs. 90,000/per hectare along with all statutory benefits. (iii) The amount of compensation shall be paid by the acquiring body within a period of four months from today. First Appeals are allowed in aforesaid terms. There would be no order as to costs.