JUDGMENT : This appeal is filed by the claimant challenging the judgment and award dated 18.08.2014 in LACA.No.846/2013 passed by the III Additional District Judge Gulbarga by modifying the judgment and award dated 09.01.1999 in LAC.No.151/1997 passed by the Prl. Civil Judge (Sr. Dn) Gulbarga, for further enhancement of compensation. 2. Brief facts of the case, the claimant is the owner of land Sy.No.124/1C measuring 03 acres 28 guntas of dry land situated at Kurikota Village Tq: and Dist: Gulbarga. The said land was acquired by the respondents for the purpose of construction of Bennetora Project issuing preliminary notification dated 10.12.1987 under Section 4(1) of Land Acquisition Act. The Land Acquisition Officer has passed an award on 20.06.1990 by fixing the market value of the land Rs.3,500/-per acre for dry land. Being aggrieved by the same the appellant has filed application under Section 18 (1) of L.A. Act before the reference Court. The Prl. Civil Judge (Sr. Dn) Gulbarga on considering the material available on record awarded compensation of Rs.14,500/-per acre for land in LAC.No.151/1997 dated 09.01.1999. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant has preferred an appeal before the III Additional District Judge at Gulbarga in LACA.No.846/2013. After hearing both the parties the First Appellate Court by its judgment and award dated 18.08.2014 in LACA.No.846/2013 has awarded compensation of Rs.45,400/-per acre for dry land. Being aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed for further enhancement of compensation. 3. Sri.S.S.Sajjanshetty, learned counsel for the appellant submits that, the impugned judgment and award passed by the First Appellate Court awarding compensation of Rs.45,400/-per acre for dry land is on lower side and contrary to the material on record. In the similar circumstances this Court by order dated 22.03.2018 in MSA.No.200027/2016 (LAC) has awarded a compensation of Rs.1,40,144/-per acre for dry land with all statutory benefits. Hence, he seeking for compensation in terms of judgment passed by this Court in MSA.No.200027/2016 (LAC). 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents are not in position to dispute the judgment passed by this Court in MSA.No.200027/2016 (LAC). They further contended that, since there is a delay in preferring the appeal, the appellant is not entitled for the interest for the delayed period. 5. Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties. 6. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents are not in position to dispute the judgment passed by this Court in MSA.No.200027/2016 (LAC). They further contended that, since there is a delay in preferring the appeal, the appellant is not entitled for the interest for the delayed period. 5. Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties. 6. It is not in dispute that, land in question was acquired by the respondents for the purpose of construction of Bennetora Project by issuing preliminary notification dated 10.12.1987 under Section 4(1) of Land Acquisition Act. The Land Acquisition Officer has passed an award on 20.06.1990 by fixing the market value of the land Rs.3,500/-per acre for dry land. The Prl. Civil Judge (Sr. Dn) Gulbarga awarded compensation of Rs.14,500/-per acre for dry land in LAC.No.151/1997 dated 09.01.1999. The First Appellate Court by its judgment and award dated 18.08.2014 in LACA.No.846/2013 has awarded compensation of Rs.45,400/-per acre for dry land. In the similar circumstances the land Sy.No.123 measuring 13 acres 16 guntas of dry land situated at Kurikota Village in Gulbarga Tq: & Dist: Gulbarga was acquired under the very same notification dated 10.12.1987 for the very same purpose of Bennetora Project. This Court by judgment dated 22.03.2018 in MSA.No.200027/2016 (LAC) has granted compensation of Rs.1,40,144/-per acre for dry land with all statutory benefits. Therefore, with all fairness, the appellant is also entitled for equal treatment while determining the compensation who is also land loser on par with others. There cannot be any discrimination in between the parties whose lands were acquired for the same purpose, under same notification and in the very same village while determination of the compensation with all statutory benefits. It is well settled principles of law that, in all land acquisition matters, when Government acquired the lands for the public purpose, the respondents, Reference Court or District Judge cannot ignore the fact that, the appellants are the land losers permanently and they are entitled to just compensation without discrimination between the claimants. Admittedly, in the present case acquisition made as stated supra for the same project and for the same purpose. Therefore, appellant is also entitled for same benefit. 7. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is allowed in part with proportionate costs. The judgment and award passed by III Additional District Judge Gulbarga in LACA.No.846/2013 dated 18.08.2014 and judgment and award passed by Prl. Therefore, appellant is also entitled for same benefit. 7. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is allowed in part with proportionate costs. The judgment and award passed by III Additional District Judge Gulbarga in LACA.No.846/2013 dated 18.08.2014 and judgment and award passed by Prl. Civil Judge (Sr. Dn) Gulbarga in LAC.No.151/1997 dated 09.01.1999 are modified. The present appellant is also entitled for compensation of Rs.1,40,144/-per acre for dry land with all statutory benefits. 8. However, it is made clear that the appellant is not entitled for any interest for the delay accrued before either First Appellate Court or before this Court in the present appeal. 9. The appellant is granted four weeks time to pay, deficit Court fee, if any in view of enhancement of compensation in accordance with law. Accordingly, appeal is disposed off.