JUDGMENT : This appeal takes an exception to the judgment and award dated 17-12-2005 passed by the learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Pandharkawada (Kelapur) in Land Acquisition Case No. 197/2002. By the said judgment and award, Reference Court enhanced the amount of compensation at the rate of Rs. 70,000/- per hectare with consequential benefits for the acquired land. Being aggrieved thereof, State has preferred the present appeal. 2. The fact giving rise to the appeal may be stated in nutshell as under : i. Land bearing Gat No. 79, admeasuring 4.64 hectares and Gat No. 53, admeasuring 4.46 hectares situated at Gondwakadi owned by the claimant came to be acquired for ‘Gondwakadi Tank Project’ by virtue of notification issued under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short) on 20-10-1994. The Special Land Acquisition Officer fixed the rate of compensation for the acquired land of Gat No. 79 at the rate of Rs. 22,000/- per hectare and of Gat No. 53 at the rate of Rs. 26,000/- per hectare. ii. Being not satisfied with the amount of compensation determined by Special Land Acquisition Officer, claimant approached the Reference Court under section 18 of the Act contending inter alia that the acquired land is an irrigated land having deep black cotton soil and exceptionally fertile. The soil conservation measures taken up by the claimant further immensely improved the quality of land. According to the claimant, net income from the acquired land was Rs. 7,000/- to Rs. 8,000/- per acre every year. iii. The next submission on behalf of the claimant was that the land is situated near village Gondwakadi adjoining other villages Ganeshpur, Dhoki and Tahsil place Kelapur. It is connected with bus services having all essential facilities available. A grievance was made that Special Land Acquisition Officer considering the sale instances in the vicinity determined the compensation, which is highly inadequate. According to the claimant, market value of the land at the time of acquisition was at the rate of Rs. 2,50,000/- per hectare. She accordingly claimed compensation for acquired land at the rate of Rs. 2,50,000/- per hectare with other consequential benefits and for trees. iv. Respondents filed written statement (Exh.8) and resisted the claim for enhancement of compensation. It was denied that inadequate compensation was determined by the Land Acquisition Officer. 2,50,000/- per hectare. She accordingly claimed compensation for acquired land at the rate of Rs. 2,50,000/- per hectare with other consequential benefits and for trees. iv. Respondents filed written statement (Exh.8) and resisted the claim for enhancement of compensation. It was denied that inadequate compensation was determined by the Land Acquisition Officer. According to respondents, Land Acquisition Officer upon considering the sale instances fixed just, proper and reasonable rate of the acquired land. It was contended that claim was barred by limitation. Respondents thereby urged to reject the application. v. On the respective pleadings of the parties, Reference Court framed issues at Exh.11. Claimant examined her Power of Attorney PW-1 Mirza Niyajali Beg and Jafar Patel. Respondents did not adduce any oral evidence. vi. On appreciation of evidence, learned Reference Court enhanced the compensation for acquired land to Rs. 70,000/- per hectare. The claim for enhancement of compensation for the trees was, however, rejected. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and award, State has preferred this appeal. 3. The only issue that arises for determination in this appeal is whether the Reference Court was justified in enhancing the amount of compensation and the enhanced amount of compensation is just, reasonable and proper. 4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that in the similar set of facts, this Court has passed orders in First Appeal Nos. 334/2006 and 1405/2009 dated 19-7-2017 thereby partly allowing the appeals filed by the State to the extent of entitlement of claimant to the interest as awarded by the Reference Court. Copy of judgment in the said appeals is placed on record. 5. It can be seen from the facts in First Appeal Nos. 334/2006 and 1405/2009 that this Court after considering the evidence adduced by the parties found that the acquired land was somewhat away from Gaothan of village Gondwakdi and it had non-agriculture potential. This Court has further held that the Tribunal has arrived at just and fair compensation as Rs. 75,000/- per hectare. 6. In the case on hand, evidence clearly indicates that the acquired land was at some distance from Gaothan of village Gondwakdi and was a dry crop land. 7. The enhancement of compensation by the Reference Court is thus based on the evidence on record. For trees, the claim was negatived by Reference Court to which there is no challenge. 6. In the case on hand, evidence clearly indicates that the acquired land was at some distance from Gaothan of village Gondwakdi and was a dry crop land. 7. The enhancement of compensation by the Reference Court is thus based on the evidence on record. For trees, the claim was negatived by Reference Court to which there is no challenge. On the basis of the judgments delivered by the Reference Court in previous land acquisition cases referred in the judgment and order dated 19-7-2017, by this Court in First Appeal Nos. 334/2006 and 1405/2009 and the reasons recorded therein, this Court is of the view that the Tribunal has arrived at just and fair compensation at the rate of Rs. 70,000/- per hectare for the acquired lands. 8. At this stage, learned Assistant Government Pleader points out that the Reference Court has directed to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date after 15 days of the notice under section 9(1) of the Act for the first year and then at the rate of 15% per annum for subsequent period till the date of deposit of excess amount in the Court under section 28 of the Act. Learned A.G.P. submits that the direction regarding payment of interest is not legally tenable and needs to be set aside. The submission of learned A.G.P. cannot be said to be without substance. To this limited extent, impugned judgment and order has to be modified. Hence, the following order. ORDER I. (i) First Appeal No. 336/2008 is partly allowed to the extent of modifying the direction given in the order by the Reference Court regarding interest, (ii) It is held that claimant is entitled for interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of possession for the first year and at the rate of 15% per annum for subsequent period till realization of the amount. II. No order as to costs. Appeal partly allowed.