JUDGMENT : The appellants in the above said cases claiming to be the owners of the lands as detailed in the following table : MFA.No. 101087/2014 101050/2014 101049/2009 LAC.No. 58/2012 28/2009 30/2009 Sy.No. 5/1 7/2B/1 7/2B/2 Extent 03 acre, 00 gunta 01 acre, 06 guntas 01 acre, 00 gunta Village Haganur, Badami Taluka Haganur, Badami Taluka Haganur, Badami Taluka Amount awarded by SLAO Rs.1,01,616 per acre for irrigated land, Rs.33,728 per acre for dry land. Rs.1,01,616 per acre for irrigated land. Rs.1,01,616 per acre for irrigated land. Amount awarded by reference Court Rs.1,60,000/­ per acre for irrigated land, and Rs.67,200/­ for dry land. Rs.1,60,000/­ per acre for irrigated land. Rs.1,60,000/­per acre for irrigated land. have claimed compensation for the acquisition of their lands for having the Government acquired the said lands for the purpose of construction of New Residential Houses for shifting the Haganur village on the basis of the preliminary notification dated 14.09.2006 which is not in dispute. After evaluation of the said lands the Land Acquisition Officer has passed an award in LAQ.SR.No.5/200607 dated 21.06.008 has determined the market value for the irrigated land at Rs.1,01,606/per acre and at Rs.33,728/per acre for dry lands. 2. Being not satisfied with the said award, reference applications have been made by the claimants and the same came to be referred to the Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Badami for determination of the compensation. Infact in L.A.C.No.58 of 2012 clubbed with L.A.C.No.59 of 2012 the learned Senior Civil Judge considered the claim of the appellant in M.F.A.No.101087 of 2014 Mr.Holiyappa and also considered the claim of one Ningappa who is appellant in M.F.A.No.101049 of 2014 claimant in L.A.C.No.29 of 2009, as well considered the claim of the appellant in M.F.A.No.101050 of 2014 Pundalikappa claimant in L.A.C.No.28 of 2009 and after recording the evidence and hearing the arguments on merits in those land acquisition cases, ultimately the learned Senior Civil Judge enhanced the compensation at the rate of Rs.1,60,000/so far as irrigated lands are concerned and Rs.67,200/per acre so far as dry lands are concerned. Though the claimants/ appellants herein claimed that their lands are irrigated lands, but the Senior Civil Judge has accepted the bifurcation of the said lands as ordered by the Land Acquisition Officer, the wet land and irrigated land and enhanced the compensation accordingly. Though the claimants/ appellants herein claimed that their lands are irrigated lands, but the Senior Civil Judge has accepted the bifurcation of the said lands as ordered by the Land Acquisition Officer, the wet land and irrigated land and enhanced the compensation accordingly. So far as the appellant Holiyappa is concerned, it is stated that, he is entitled for compensation to the irrigated land to the extent of 01 acre 30 guntas and entitled compensation for dry land to the extent of 01 acre 10 guntas in Sy.No.5/1, wherein it is stated that the appellant in M.F.A.No.101049 of 2014 Ningappa is concerned, he is entitled for compensation to the extent of 01 acre 35 guntas in Sy.No.7/2B/1 as 01 acre 06 guntas irrigated lands and 01 acre 35 guntas as dry land. 3.The learned counsel for the appellants contended before this Court that, the learned Senior Civil Judge without giving any reason whatsoever has accepted bifurcation of the said lands into wet and dry lands and awarded compensation separately. Though the land acquisition officer himself has come to the conclusion that, all the lands are wet lands and they are irrigated by means of channel water. Therefore, he contends that the said defect has to be corrected by this Court. 4.Learned counsel also contends that the Land Acquisition Officer has conceded before the LokAdalath in similarly placed cases, where the lands are situated in Badami taluk and accepted for fixation of the compensation at Rs.2,17,350/per acre so far as the wet lands are concerned. Learned counsel furnishes a document, compromise petition in LAC.No.47/2008 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Badami, which is actually not disputed by other side. Therefore, considering the said acceptance of Rs.2,17,000/per acre to the wet lands as the notification pertaining to the year 2006, 4 years escalation at the rate of 5% has to be granted to the said amount and it will workout to Rs.2,60,400/. If that much of amount is awarded, the claimants would be satisfied. Even though, in this appeal and before the reference Court the said claimants have urged for declaration that their lands are non agricultural potential value. Though some materials are produced before the Reference Court and the same have been considered by the Reference Court while dealing with the matter, but the learned counsel did not press that claim before us while arguing the matter. 5. Though some materials are produced before the Reference Court and the same have been considered by the Reference Court while dealing with the matter, but the learned counsel did not press that claim before us while arguing the matter. 5. The learned counsel also relied upon a judgment of this Court in MFA No.24305/2013 dated 06.12.2016, wherein this Court has also considered similar lands with similar set of facts and circumstances, pertaining to Nandikeshwar village in Badami Taluk itself and enhanced the compensation so far as the wet lands are concerned to the extent of Rs.2,82,100/considering the escalation from the date of notification i.e., from the year 2002 to 2008 and awarded the compensation accordingly. Hence for all the above said reasons appellants pleaded for enhancement of compensation. 6. Percontra, the learned Additional Government Advocate, strenuously contends before this Court that, so far as the bifurcation of the dry lands and wet lands are concerned, the Land Acquisition Officer though noted in his order and stated that, the said lands are wet lands, but the total consideration of the extent of Sy.No.5/1 as 12 acres, but out of that, 7 acres only come within the purview of wet lands and remaining are dry lands. Therefore, apportioning the said dry lands of the claimants, it was decided that the dry lands and wet lands have to be separately evaluated and compensation has to be paid, accordingly compensation has been paid. Under protest the said amount has also been received by the claimants. When such being the case, the said question did not arose, before the Reference Court (Senior Civil Judge) for modification of the Award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, as such the learned Civil Judge has not considered the said aspect, but confirmed the Land Acquisition officer’s opinion in this regard. Therefore there is no need for this Court to give a deviated version so far as the said lands are concerned. 7. She further contends before this Court that, merely because some other decision enhancing the compensation pertaining to the said taluk or the area is available it does not enure to the benefit of the claimants independently. The claimants have to establish that their lands are non agricultural and N.A. potential lands, in order to claim enhanced compensation. 7. She further contends before this Court that, merely because some other decision enhancing the compensation pertaining to the said taluk or the area is available it does not enure to the benefit of the claimants independently. The claimants have to establish that their lands are non agricultural and N.A. potential lands, in order to claim enhanced compensation. Therefore under the above said facts and circumstances merely because in some other land acquisition cases before the LokAdalath or before this Court, some opinion has been expressed by this Court that does not form any basis for enhancement of the compensation. 8. Having heard the above said rival contentions and after carefully going through the materials on record, it is crystal clear from the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer dated 21.06.2008 which is marked at Ex.D.1 before the trial Court, wherein at paragraph Nos.4, 8 and 9, the Land Acquisition Officer has categorically stated that, he personally inspected the spot and at the time of his personal inspection, he found that, the entire lands in Sy.No.5/1 was an agricultural wet land. However, at paragraph No.5, it is stated that the land bearing Sy.No.5/1 measures 12 acres, out of that 7 acres is only wet land and remaining are dry land as per the letter written by the Assistant Executive Engineer, Malaprabha, Edadande Caluve, SubDivision. Therefore, he has declared out of 12 acres, 5 acres as the dry land and the remaining as the wet land and awarded the compensation. However, there is no material available in the said award on what basis the Assistant Executive Engineer has stated that the 5 acres of lands are dry land and remaining are the wet land. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants has also taken us through the RTC extract which is marked at Ex.P.5 pertaining to Sy.No.5 in which it is categorically stated that, the entire 12 acres as Bagayath (wet land). Under the above said circumstances, the opinion expressed by the Land Acquisition Officer that entire land is the wet land as stated by him after his personal inspection, has to be accepted and entire land has to be treated as wet land for to award compensation. 10. Under the above said circumstances, the opinion expressed by the Land Acquisition Officer that entire land is the wet land as stated by him after his personal inspection, has to be accepted and entire land has to be treated as wet land for to award compensation. 10. So far as other aspect with regard to fixation of the compensation is concerned, the learned Senior Civil Judge has gone through in detail the potentiality of the said land with reference to growing of the crops and other things. Though some documents are produced to show some sites have been formed in the lands which abutting to the said survey number, has not been seriously taken into consideration. At paragraph Nos.15 of his order, learned judge has stated that the claimants have produced a document pertaining to a plot situated by the side of the acquired land bearing Panchayath No.98 sold for a sum of Rs.16,000/measuring 30x40 and the said plot was sold on 15.12.2004 one or two years earlier to the 4(1) notification. Though the said document was available to the learned judge, but the same has been totally ignored on the ground that there is no hard and fast rule, that under no circumstances Civil Court can rely upon the sale deed involving smaller extent of lands for determination of the market value of larger extent of lands though such sale deed is comparable in terms of time and locus. Ofcourse, the said observation of the learned Civil Judge may be correct in order to evaluate or to arrive at a conclusion for awarding compensation to the entire larger extent. But it should not be ignored altogether for the purpose of considering the nature of the lands situated nearby the lands of the claimants. 11. Further leaned trial judge has also observed that in some other land acquisition cases the Court has enhanced the compensation to Rs.1,60,000/per acre to wet lands. The learned Judge has also evaluated the compensation on the basis of the yield of the said lands. But the yield of the said lands perhaps has been taken into consideration on the basis of bifurcating the lands as dry lands and wet lands. 12. The learned Judge has also evaluated the compensation on the basis of the yield of the said lands. But the yield of the said lands perhaps has been taken into consideration on the basis of bifurcating the lands as dry lands and wet lands. 12. Therefore, in our opinion the entire materials ought to have been taken into consideration not for the purpose of treating the said lands as NA potential lands but for the purpose of considering that it is not only an agricultural wet land but it is also having some potential, though not NA potential lands for the purpose of awarding compensation. 13. In this background in our opinion, the other materials placed before the Court by the learned counsel that in LAC No.47/2008, before the Taluka Legal Services Authority, Badami Taluk, before the Lok Adalah award of a sum of Rs.2,17,350/per acre with 5% of escalation per year which has been accepted with consent by the Government. This also in our opinion, cannot be simply ignored for the simple reason that in MFA No.24305/2013 vide orders dated 6th day of December 2016 at paragraph No.4, this Court has made an observation that, the Government has not denied the awarding of compensation of Rs.2,17,500/during the year 2002 fixing the market value to irrigated land, and it is specifically observed that, the leaned Government Advocate did not dispute the same. Therefore, coupled with the above said circumstances, though not they are specifically and individually sufficient for the purpose of enhancing the compensation, but on overhaul looking to the entire materials on record we are of the opinion that at least the claimants are entitled for the undisputed fixation of the compensation for wet land in the Lok Adalath a sum of Rs.2,17,350/per acre. Hence, the decision cited by the learned Additional Government Advocate reported in (2018) 13 Supreme Court Cases 96 between Manoj Kumar and others Vs. State of Haryana and other s is not strictly applicable so far as this case is concerned, wherein the Apex Court has held that a judgment or award in other cases cannot be taken into consideration while hearing arguments unless they form part of evidence in the case. State of Haryana and other s is not strictly applicable so far as this case is concerned, wherein the Apex Court has held that a judgment or award in other cases cannot be taken into consideration while hearing arguments unless they form part of evidence in the case. The said ruling cited by the learned counsel before this Court in our opinion stand on different footing because in MFA as we have noted that there is no disputed facts in the said case as the learned Additional Government Advocate in the said case has admitted the fixation of the compensation for a sum of Rs.2,17,500/. In LAC.No.47/2008, we have cited, there also there was a consent award passed by the LokAdalath. Therefore there is no harm in relying upon these orders, because admitted facts need not be proved. 14. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the fixation of an amount of Rs.2,17,500/per acre, treating the lands of the appellants as wet lands in the above said facts and circumstances is reasonable. As the award is passed in the year 2006, 5% escalation has to be granted for a period of four years. It will worksout to Rs.2,60,400/. The claimants are entitled for compensation at the rate of Rs.2,60,400/per acre. Under the above said circumstances, we proceed to pass the following : ORDER 1. The appeals are allowed in part. 2. The claimants are entitled to the market value of Rs.2,60,400/per acre in respect of their acquired lands situated in Haganur village, Badami taluk as against Rs.1,60,000/per acre awarded by the reference Court. The remaining portion of the order passed by the reference Court regarding other entitlement of the claimants are not disturbed and claimants are entitled for all those additional benefits as ordered by reference Court. 3. The enhanced amount has to be deposited as early as possible within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.