JUDGMENT : B.A. Patil, J. The land looser's have filed these above appeals seeking enhancement of the market value as against the sum awarded by the reference Court through its common judgment and award dated 20.04.2013 passed by Senior Civil Judge at Afzalpur. 2. The lands situated in Udachana Village were acquired by common preliminary notification dated 27.03.2008 for construction of ' Bhima Lift Irrigation Project" and award came to be passed on 25.04.2011 determining the market value of the lands acquired at Rs. 35,000/- per acre for wet lands. 3. Appellants-land owners claiming to be aggrieved, filed protest petitions under Section 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act seeking enhancement of market value, the same came to be referred to the reference Court. By common judgment and award dated 20.04.2013 in L.A.C.No.1007/2012 and connected cases, after taking into consideration the evidence tendered before it the reference Court fixed the market value at the rate of Rs. 3,98,250/- per acre in addition to the statutory benefits. Now being aggrieved by the said award appellants are before this Court seeking enhancement of the said compensation. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants, respondent beneficiary and the Addl. Government Advocate. 5. During the course of arguments, though the learned counsel for the appellant has raised several contentions and he relied upon a decision of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in M.F.A.No.31613/2012 C/w other cases dated 08.01.2015, contended that in respect of acquired lands for the similar project i.e., Bhima Lift Irrigation Project under different notification the market value has been fixed at Rs. 4,15,000/-. 6. Further he contended by relying upon a decision of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in M.F.A. No. 201062/2014 dated 23.01.2017 by applying the escalation of 2 years the market value has been fixed, as such same method be adopted for fixing the market value. 7. The learned counsel for the respondents vehemently argued by relying upon a decision of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in M.F.A.No.32078/2013 C/w M.F.A.CROB No. 1577/2013 dated 13.12.2016 that by applying escalation of 8% by taking into consideration one year to the notification after 2006 and 2007 has fixed the market value. The said aspect has been also clarified in a decision of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in M.F.A.No.31613/2012 and connected matters dated 08.01.2015. The said aspect has been also clarified in a decision of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in M.F.A.No.31613/2012 and connected matters dated 08.01.2015. He further contended that in a decision of this Court in M.F.A.No.32439/2013 dated 01.12.2016 and other matters, same method has been adopted uniformly as such the same yardstick to be adopted while disposing the above appeals. 8. Though rival contention in that regard have been addressed, it is seen that Division Bench of this Court in M.F.A.No.31613/2012 C/w others cases dated 08.01.2015 by taking into consideration all aspect of this matter has determined the market value at Rs. 4,15,000/- per acre for similar projects i.e., Bhima Lift Irrigation Project. Since such determination was made in respect of the lands which were acquired under notification of the year 2006 and 2007. Keeping in view the fact that the land involved in these proceedings are acquired under the notification of the year 2008 for similar purpose and both parties agreed to adopt the same, by applying the market value as stated above by providing escalation of 8%, if the market value is fixed, it will come to Rs. 4,56,500/- per acre. The same is fixed accordingly with all the statutory benefits and costs incurred in this appeal. 9. At this stage, it is also necessary to note that the learned counsel for the land loser submits that this Court in Division Bench for the same year of notification two years escalation has been given, as such the same be adopted in these cases. But the learned counsel for the beneficiary submitted that except in one case uniformly, for the subsequent notification one year escalation has been given. He further contend that he will prefer appeal in that one case wherein two years escalation has been given to maintain the equality. 10. Keeping in view the submission of both and on perusal of the copies of the judgments and awards, in order to maintain the uniformity one year escalation has been adopted. In this aspect it is made clear that, if for any reasons, the method of two years escalation is confirmed or modified in that single case. 11. Under the similar set of circumstances, at that stage, the land loser would be entitled to seek for modification of these judgments. 12. These appeals are allowed in part in the above terms.