JUDGMENT : ALOK ARADHE, J. 1. These appeals under Section 54 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short) have been filed by the land owners seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Reference Court. Since, all the lands are situated in Alcola village of Shivamogga district and have been acquired for Upper Tunga project, they were heard analogously and are being decided by this common judgment. 2. Facts giving rise to filing of the appeals briefly stated are that the appellants were the owners of land situated in Alcola Village, Shivamogga District. The aforesaid lands were required for Upper Tunga project. Thereupon, proceedings under the Act were initiated. Notifications under Section 4(1) of the Act were issued on 25.01.2001, 17.03.2001 and 20.05.2004. Thereafter, awards were passed respectively on 26.03.2003 and 20.05.2004 respectively, by which amount of compensation was fixed at Rs. 1,50,000/- per acre for dry land and Rs. 1,35,000/- for tank fed land. In MFA No. 10477/2013 and 6238/2013, the compensation was fixed at Rs. 1,45,000/- per acre by the Land Acquisition Officer. Being aggrieved, the appellants sought a reference under Section 18 of the Act. The Reference Court vide judgments dated 04.10.2005, 16.07.2010, 31.10.2008, 14.04.2011 and 01.02.2013 awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 5,40,000/- per acre Rs. 3,50,000/- per acre Rs. 4,50,000/- per acre Rs. 5,40,000/- per acre and Rs. 47/- per square feet. 3. Being aggrieved, the appellants have filed these appeals and have claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 105/- per square feet. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that in respect of the lands situated at Alcola village, which were acquired for Upper Tunga project, the Reference court by an order dated 03.02.2006 had enhanced the amount of compensation from Rs. 84 to Rs. 100/- per square feet. The aforesaid order was subject matter of challenge in M.A. No. 12/2008 and M.A. Nos. 19-226/2008, which was disposed of by Principal District Judge, Shivamogga by an order dated 03.07.2010 and the compensation was enhanced to Rs. 150/-. It is also urged that the aforesaid order was subject matter of challenge in M.S.A. Nos. 33-41/2011, which was disposed of by a Bench of this court as dismissed by an order dated 16.08.2012. 19-226/2008, which was disposed of by Principal District Judge, Shivamogga by an order dated 03.07.2010 and the compensation was enhanced to Rs. 150/-. It is also urged that the aforesaid order was subject matter of challenge in M.S.A. Nos. 33-41/2011, which was disposed of by a Bench of this court as dismissed by an order dated 16.08.2012. It is further pointed out that the aforesaid order has attained finality and the respondent has paid the amount to the land owners at the rate fixed by this court. It is also pointed out that in LAC No. 109/2003 and LAC No. 102/2003, which were decided by the Reference Court dated 03.02.2011 and 19.11.2011, the Reference court had fixed the market value after deduction of 30% as the lands in question were agricultural lands and had assessed the same at Rs. 105/- per square feet. It is further submitted that the respondent did not prefer any appeal against the aforesaid judgments passed by the reference court and paid the amount of compensation to the land owners. It is further submitted that the lands of the appellants are also situate in the same village viz. Alcola village and had been acquired for Upper Tunga project and therefore, the appellants are entitled to parity in the matter of grant of compensation. It is also urged that the respondent No. 2 viz. the beneficiary, which is the instrumentality of the State cannot be permitted to subject the appellants to discrimination in the matter of compensation. 4. On the other hand, learned Senior counsel for respondent No. 2 fairly submitted that against the judgments passed in LAC Nos. 109/2003 and 102/2003, no appeals were preferred and the amount of compensation was paid to the land owners. It is also not disputed that the lands involved in the aforesaid land acquisition cases as well as the lands of the appellants are situate in Alcola village and have been acquired for Upper Tunga Project. However, it is pointed out that in M.A. No. 12/2008, the Court had fixed the market value of the property on the basis of residential plot, which has been made the basis of judgment in LAC No. 109/2003 and 102/2003. Therefore, the same cannot be made the basis for determination of compensation in case of the appellants. However, it is pointed out that in M.A. No. 12/2008, the Court had fixed the market value of the property on the basis of residential plot, which has been made the basis of judgment in LAC No. 109/2003 and 102/2003. Therefore, the same cannot be made the basis for determination of compensation in case of the appellants. It is further submitted that the lands of the appellants are agricultural lands; therefore, the market value assessed in the aforesaid cases cannot be applied to the case of the appellants. 5. We have considered the submissions made on both sides and have perused the record. The sole question, which arises for consideration in this batch of appeals is whether it is open for the beneficiary to assail the validity of the judgments 03.02.2011 and 19.02.2011 passed in LAC No. 109/2003 and 102/2003. The Supreme Court in case of Union of India vs. Balram, (2010) 5 SCC 747 has held that if the purpose of acquisition is the same and the lands are identical and similar though lying in different villages there is no justification to make any discrimination between the land owners to pay more compensation to some of the land owners and less compensation to others. Similar view was taken by the Supreme Court in Ali Mohammed Beigh and Others vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir, (2017) 4 SCC 717 . We are conscious of the fact that the judgment rendered in MA No. 12/2008, which was upheld in MSA No. 33-41/2011, the market value of the land was assessed in respect of a residential plot. However, the aforesaid market value fixed in respect of the residential plot has been made the basis for fixation of the market value in respect of agricultural lands in LAC No. 109/2003 and LAC No. 102/2003 decided on 03.02.2011 and 19.02.2011. The aforesaid judgments have not been challenged by the beneficiary viz. respondent No. 2 and the amount of compensation have been paid to the land owners. Therefore, in the peculiar fact situation of the case, the respondent No. 2 is precluded from contending that the appellants are not entitled to the benefit of the judgment rendered by Reference Court in LAC 109/2003 and 102/2003. respondent No. 2 and the amount of compensation have been paid to the land owners. Therefore, in the peculiar fact situation of the case, the respondent No. 2 is precluded from contending that the appellants are not entitled to the benefit of the judgment rendered by Reference Court in LAC 109/2003 and 102/2003. It is elementary rule of law that a litigant cannot be permitted to assume inconsistent positions in the court, to play fast and loose, to blow hot and cold, to approbate and reprobate to the detriment of the opponent. This wholesome doctrine applies not only to successive stages of the same proceeding but also to another proceeding other than the one in which the position was taken up provided that the subsequent proceeding also is of similar nature. [See: Amar Singh vs. Union of India, (2011) 7 SCC 69 ]. Apart from this, the respondent No. 2 being the instrumentality of the State cannot be permitted to practice discrimination and to pay compensation to the land owners, even though the land is situated in same village and has been acquired for the same purpose at different rates. We are afraid that respondent No. 2 cannot be permitted to raise such a plea in this batch of appeals. 6. In view of preceding analysis, we hold that the appellants are entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs. 105/- per square feet. Needless to state that the appellants shall be entitled to solatium and other interest as are admissible under the provisions of the Act. To the aforesaid extent, the judgment passed by the Reference Court is set aside and is modified. 7. In the result, the appeals are disposed of.