JUDGMENT : 1. Heard. ADMIT. 2. There is no need to call for any record and proceedings as the issue involved in this case is squarely covered by the judgments of this Court in two cases, first being First Appeal No. 91/1998 decided on 3.8.2011 and second being First Appeal No. 709/2014 decided on 21.11.2014. 3. Heard finally by consent. 4. The only point that falls for consideration of this Court is: Whether the compensation granted by the reference Court for compulsory acquisition of the land involved in this case is just and proper? 5. The appellant’s land bearing Survey No. 33/1A, admeasuring 3.40 HR, situated at village Deurwadi, Tq. Digras, District-Yavatmal, was acquired by the State for the purposes of Arunawati Project. Notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 10.12.1982. The Land Acquisition Officer passed an award on 29.2.1983 and awarded the compensation at the rate of Rs. 12,500/- per hector and also awarded compensation for three mango trees amounting to Rs. 3,355/-. When the reference application under section 18 of the L.A. Act was referred to the reference Court for adjudication, the reference Court, on merits of the case, enhanced the compensation by determining the rate of the acquired land to be at Rs. 22,500/- per hector and also enhanced the compensation for mango trees by finding that there were 9 mango trees and the valuation of each of the trees was of Rs. 2,000/-. The appellant/claimant, being not satisfied with the same, has approached this Court in the present appeal. 6. According to learned counsel for the appellant, acquired land being a dry crop land reasonably fetched the price of Rs. 65,000/- per hector and this has been accepted by this Court in connected appeals, referred to earlier, in which the lands involved were similar to the land involved in the present case. He has no grievance about the valuation of the trees. 7. Ms. T. Udeshi, learned AGP for the respondents, submits that since the land involved in the present appeal is covered by the same notification and also the award by the Land Acquisition Officer, passed in the connected appeals referred to earlier, this Court can appropriately decide the point involved in this case. 8. 7. Ms. T. Udeshi, learned AGP for the respondents, submits that since the land involved in the present appeal is covered by the same notification and also the award by the Land Acquisition Officer, passed in the connected appeals referred to earlier, this Court can appropriately decide the point involved in this case. 8. Upon going through the judgments rendered in the above stated appeals by this Court, I find that the land involved in this case can also be considered to be similar to the lands involved in First Appeal No. 91/1998 and First Appeal No. 709/2014. If this is so, I do not find any difficulty in determining the market value of the acquired land in this case to be at Rs. 65,000/- per hector and I do so. 9. In the result, this appeal deserves to be allowed, by declaring that the appellant is entitled to receive the compensation for the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 65,000/- per hector and point is answered accordingly. 10. Appeal is partly allowed. 11. It is declared that the appellant is entitled to receive the compensation at the rate of Rs. 65,000/- per hector for the acquired land together with the interest and other benefits at the same rate and in similar manner as given by the reference Court in the impugned award. However, it is made clear that appellant shall not be entitled to receive interest on the enhanced compensation for the delayed period i.e. from 23.4.1993 till date. 12. The impugned award is thus modified in the above terms. 13. Parties to bear their own costs. Order accordingly.