JUDGMENT : VASANTI A. NAIK, J. 1. Since the facts and the issues involved in these first appeals are common and since they arise from similar judgments and awards passed by the reference Court on the applications made by the respondents-claimants, enhancing the compensation towards the acquisition of the land, they are heard together and are decided by this common judgment. 2. The State of Maharashtra decided to acquire the land of the respondents and certain other adjoining lands for Madan Talav - Tank Project by issuance of the Section 4 Notification on 12.10.1998. The Section 6 Notification was issued on 23.3.2001. The Land Acquisition Officer passed the award on 18.8.2002 granting compensation for the acquired lands @ Rs.47,500/- per hectare. Separate compensation was granted to the respondents-claimants for the trees standing on the land. Being dissatisfied by the grant of meagre compensation, the respondents-claimants filed separate applications under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for making a reference of the matter to the civil Court. Separate land acquisition cases were registered and on an appreciation of the evidence on record, the reference Court directed the State Government and the appellant - Acquiring Body to grant compensation for the acquired lands @ Rs.2,00,000/- per hectare. The State Government and the appellant were further directed to pay the enhanced compensation for the trees at 20% of the compensation that was awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer towards trees. The Acquiring Body Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation (V.I.D.C.) is aggrieved by the enhancement of compensation @ Rs.2,00,000/- per hectare and also due to the grant of 20% of the amount for the trees on the acquired land. 3. Shri Kasat, the learned Counsel for the appellant - V.I.D.C. submitted that the reference Court was not justified in granting enhanced compensation for the acquired land @ Rs.2,00,000/- per hectare. It is stated that while granting the said compensation, the reference Court has relied on a saledeed executed by Ramaji Chaware in favour of Sheikh Rahim and others on 25.7.1996, whereby Shri Chaware had sold the land admeasuring .81 HR to Sheikh Rahim and others. It is stated that the State Government had decided to acquire the land some time in the month of September, 1996 and the sale-deed is executed just before the State Government had desired to acquire the land. It is stated that the State Government had decided to acquire the land some time in the month of September, 1996 and the sale-deed is executed just before the State Government had desired to acquire the land. It is submitted that the reference Court should not have relied on the said sale-deed to enhance the compensation manifold and grant it @ Rs.2,00,000/- per hectare. It is submitted that the reference Court was not justified in directing the appellant to pay 20% of the amount paid by the Land Acquisition Officer for the trees on the acquired land as an additional compensation for the trees. It is submitted that there is no basis whatsoever in granting additional amount for the trees standing on the land. It is submitted that since the possession of the land of the respondents was secured by the Government before the issuance of the Section 4 Notification, interest under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act was liable to be paid from the date of passing of the award and the respondents-claimants were not entitled to the interest under Section 34 of the Act from the date on which the possession was secured. The learned Counsel relied on the judgment, State of Maharashtra v. Kailash Shiva Rangari reported in 2016 (3) Mh.L.J. 457 to substantiate his submission. 4. Shri Joshi, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the State Government supported the award of the Land Acquisition Officer and advanced similar submissions as are advanced on behalf of the appellant - V.I.D.C. It is submitted that the enhancement of the compensation is on the higher side and it is not supported by any cogent evidence. 5. Ms Athalye, the learned Counsel for the respondents-claimants has supported the awards passed by the reference Court. It is submitted that the reference Court was justified in relying on the sale deed executed by Ramaji Chaware in favour of Sheikh Rahim and others on 25.7.1996, i.e., much before the issuance of the Section 4 Notification on 12.10.1998. It is stated that the land was transferred by Ramaji Chaware in favour of Sheikh Rahim and others two years before the issuance of the Section 4 Notification and the land transferred by the said transaction is located in the same survey number in which the lands of the respondents are located. It is stated that the land was transferred by Ramaji Chaware in favour of Sheikh Rahim and others two years before the issuance of the Section 4 Notification and the land transferred by the said transaction is located in the same survey number in which the lands of the respondents are located. It is submitted that the reference Court has rightly relied on the sale-deed dated 25.7.1996 to enhance the compensation in respect of the land @ Rs.2,00,000/- per hectare. It is submitted that in respect of the trees also, the respondents-claimants were entitled to much more compensation but on an appreciation of the material on record, the reference Court has granted meagre compensation for the trees. It is submitted that since there were few discrepancies in the evidence of the witnesses examined on behalf of the respondents-claimants, the reference Court has granted additional amount, i.e., 20% above the compensation that was already granted for the trees. It is submitted that additional amount of 20%, in the case of each of the claimants is very trifle and the additional compensation is only Rs.12,815/-. The learned Counsel however fairly admitted that in view of the judgment of the Full Bench, the respondents-claimants would not be entitled to interest under Section 34 of the Act from the date on which the possession was secured by the State Government and they would be entitled to seek interest under Section 34 of the Act from the date of passing of the award. It is stated that the respondents would avail the remedy for seeking the rental compensation from the State Government and the V.I.D.C. in appropriate proceedings. 6. On hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, it appears that the following points arise for determination in these appeals : (i) Whether the reference Court was justified in granting compensation @ Rs.2,00,000/- per hectare for the acquired land ? (ii) Whether the respondents-claimants were entitled to grant 20% of the amount that was determined by the Land Acquisition Officer for the trees, as enhanced compensation for the trees? (iii) Whether the reference Court was justified in granting interest under Section 34 of the Act from the date of securing the possession? (iv) What order? 7. To answer the aforesaid points for determination, it would be necessary to consider the oral and the documentary evidence tendered by the parties. (iii) Whether the reference Court was justified in granting interest under Section 34 of the Act from the date of securing the possession? (iv) What order? 7. To answer the aforesaid points for determination, it would be necessary to consider the oral and the documentary evidence tendered by the parties. The land of the respondents was acquired by the State Government for the Madan Tank Project. The land of the respondents was adjoining the National Highway and was very near to Wardha. The land was situated within a radius of 10 kilometers from the sugar factory. There was a good transport facility from the land of the claimants to the market place and agricultural produce was easily carried by the claimants from their respective lands to the market area. The land of the respondents was irrigated land and several trees including teak trees were standing on the same when the land was acquired. The land had a great potential value as the adjoining lands were used for nonagricultural purposes. The Land Acquisition Officer had granted compensation @ Rs.47,500/- per hectare. For claiming enhanced compensation, the claimants had relied on the sale-deed executed by Ramaji Chaware in favour of Sheikh Rahim and others on 25.7.1996. The Section 4 Notification is issued in this case on 12.10.1998. The saledeed executed by Ramaji Chaware pertains to the land situated in the same survey number, in which the lands of the respondents are situated. By the said transaction, Ramaji Chaware had sold .81 HR of land to Sheikh Rahim for an amount of Rs.1,75,000/-. If two acres of land was sold for a sum of Rs.1,75,000/- two years before the issuance of Section 4 Notification, it is necessary to hold that the market value of the land of the respondents-claimants was surely Rs.2,00,000/- per hectare on the date of issuance of the Section 4 Notification on 12.10.1998. We do not find any force in the submission made on behalf of the appellant - V.I.D.C. that because the persons living in the locality became aware that the lands were being acquired by the State Government, the sale-deed showed a higher consideration. The Section 4 Notification is issued on 10.12.1998, whereas the sale-deed was executed on 25.7.1996. On 25.7.1996, the State Government had not even thought of acquiring the lands. The Section 4 Notification is issued on 10.12.1998, whereas the sale-deed was executed on 25.7.1996. On 25.7.1996, the State Government had not even thought of acquiring the lands. The reference Court has rightly relied on the sale-deed executed by Ramaji Chaware in favour of Sheikh Rahim and others to grant the compensation @ Rs.2,00,000/- per hectare for the acquired land, specially when the land is situated near the Highway and had a great potential value. 8. We also do not find any error in the judgment of the reference Court in enhancing the compensation for the trees at 20% of the amount of compensation paid for the trees to the claimants as per the award of the Land Acquisition Officer. In respect of the claim for the enhanced compensation for the trees, the respondents had examined themselves and their witnesses. The valuation of the trees, as made by the Government approved valuer was much more than the amount, that is, actually granted by the reference Court. The reference Court has not relied solely on the report of the valuer to enhance the compensation and had enhanced the compensation for the trees, only at 20% of the amount that was determined by the Land Acquisition Officer for the trees. The reference Court has considered the evidence of the parties in the right perspective to hold that the respondents-claimants were entitled to at least 20% of the amount that was determined by the Land Acquisition Officer for the trees, as additional compensation for the trees. We find that the enhanced compensation for the trees is very meagre and the amount of enhanced compensation for the trees is determined between Rs.11,000/- to Rs.13,000/- in respect of each of the claimants. We do not find any error in the order of the reference Court in granting compensation for the acquired land @ Rs.2,00,000/- per hectare and 20% of the compensation determined by the Land Acquisition Officer for the trees, as enhanced compensation for the trees. 9. We do not find any error in the order of the reference Court in granting compensation for the acquired land @ Rs.2,00,000/- per hectare and 20% of the compensation determined by the Land Acquisition Officer for the trees, as enhanced compensation for the trees. 9. Though we do not find any error in the judgment of the reference Court, determining enhanced compensation for the land and the trees as aforesaid, we find that the reference Court was not justified in directing the appellant to pay interest to the claimants on the enhanced compensation under Section 34 of the Act from the date on which the possession of the land of the respondents was secured. The respondents were entitled to compensation under Section 34 of the Act from the date of passing of the award as per the judgment of the Full Bench, reported in 2016 (3) Mh.L.J. 457. 10. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the First Appeals are partly allowed. The judgments and awards passed by the reference Court are modified. We uphold the judgment of the reference Court, as far as it enhances the compensation for the acquired land and the trees. The respondents would however be entitled to interest under Section 34 of the Act from the date of passing of the award. 11. Order accordingly. No costs.