JUDGMENT N. B. Suryawanshi, J. - These two appeals filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the said Act') challenge the judgment and award in reference L.A.C. No. 90/2010 passed by the Civil Judge Senior Division, Darwha, hence, they are decided by this common judgment. 2. Land Gat No. 11 admeasuring 4H 04R at Village Antargaon, Taluka Darwha, District Yavatmal was acquired by the Government for submergence area of Antargaon Project. Notification under Section 4 was published in the Government Gazette on 13-3-2008 and the award was declared on 30-10-2009. The Land Acquisition Officer (for short 'LAO') granted compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,03,500/- per Hectare for land and awarded total compensation of Rs. 6,70,400/- for fruit trees. The claimant filed reference under Section 18 of the said Act and claimed enhanced compensation of Rs. 1,72,05,000/-. The reference Court after considering the evidence granted enhanced compensation for the land at the rate of Rs. 2,30,070/- per Hectare and compensation of Rs. 57,517.50 was given for barren (potkharab) land of 0.05R, for 410 big orange trees, compensation at Rs. 3500/- per tree, for 250 comparatively small orange trees Rs. 2500/- per tree, for 90 small orange trees Rs. 1500/- per tree, for 2 Tamarind trees Rs. 2000/- per tree and for Pomegranate tree, Rs. 900/- compensation was awarded by the reference Court along with statutory benefits. 3. Acquiring body has challenged enhanced compensation by filing First Appeal No. 1148/2016. The claimant is seeking further enhancement of compensation by filing First Appeal No. 425/2017. 4. Heard the learned Advocate for the acquiring body and the learned Advocate for the claimant. 5. The learned Advocate for the acquiring body submitted that the reference Court has awarded exorbitant compensation without there being any material on record. The reference Court has granted compensation to more number of fruit trees. Further submission is that LAO has given proper compensation and the reference Court was not justified in enhancing the compensation. It was, therefore, urged that the judgment and award passed by the reference Court is liable to be quashed and set aside and the award of the LAO is required to be maintained. 6. The learned Advocate for the claimant on the other hand submitted that the reference Court has committed an error in not considering the sale instances brought on record. 6. The learned Advocate for the claimant on the other hand submitted that the reference Court has committed an error in not considering the sale instances brought on record. It is submitted that the reference Court erred in relying upon the decision given in LAC No.22 of 2008 while arriving at the market value of the acquired land. The said decision is challenged in a separate appeal which is subjudice before the Hon'ble Single Bench of this Court. The reference Court, therefore, was not justified in observing that no appeal is filed against the said decision. The reference Court ought to have relied upon the market value awarded in LAC No.60 of 2011, which was placed on record at Exhibit 59. He further submitted that the reference Court ought to have relied upon Joint Measurement Report at Exhibit 53 for arriving at the correct number of fruit trees in the acquired land. However, the reference Court has erroneously proceeded to place reliance on the award and thereby awarded compensation for less number of trees. The valuation report proved on record by the claimant ought to have been relied upon by the reference Court and the compensation in terms of the valuation report ought to have been given for the fruit trees. Though four sale instances at Exhibit 17 and Exhibit 18 of Village Antargaon and Exhibit 19 and 20 of Darwha Taluka were brought on record, the reference Court has failed to consider the same while arriving at correct market value of the acquired land. He submitted that sufficient material is produced on record justifying the claimant's claim for enhanced compensation. The reference Court ought to have allowed the reference by awarding compensation claimed by the claimant. He therefore submitted that the first appeal filed by the claimant may be allowed and the compensation claimed in reference LAC No. 90/2010 be awarded. 7. After hearing the rival contentions, following point arise for consideration : Whether the compensation awarded by the reference Court is liable to be reduced or enhanced ? 8. Heard both the sides and perused the record. 9. The claimant has relied upon following sale instances in support of his claim. Sr. 7. After hearing the rival contentions, following point arise for consideration : Whether the compensation awarded by the reference Court is liable to be reduced or enhanced ? 8. Heard both the sides and perused the record. 9. The claimant has relied upon following sale instances in support of his claim. Sr. No. Exhibit No. Gat No. Village Extent of land sold Consideration Amount (Rs.) Date 1 17 14/1 Antargaon 0.80R 1,10,000/- 2-2-2001 2 18 26 Antargaon 1H70R 2,50,000/- 2-7-2001 3 19 155/1 Kasbe, Darwha 1H06R 7,00,000/- 16-10-2001 4 20 121/2 Kasbe, Darwha 0.04R 4,92,750/- 19-5-2000 Sale instances at Exhibit 19 and Exhibit 20 are of Mouza Kasbe, Darwha. The distance between Kasbe, Darwha and Antargaon is not brought on record. Exhibit 19 and Exhibit 20 appear to be of non-agriculture land, therefore, these two sale instances are not comparable with the acquired land for arriving at correct market value. 10. The claimant has proved that the acquired land was irrigated land. Sale instances at Exhibit 17 and 18 are from same village Antargaon, where the acquired land of the claimant was situated. These two sale instances were taken into consideration in LAC No.22 of 2008, which is at Exhibit 57. Holding that the acquired land and the land in LAC No.22 of 2008 were acquired at the same time and no appeal is preferred against the decision in LAC No.22 of 2008, the reference Court, therefore, awarded compensation @ Rs.2,30,070/- per hectare for the acquired land as was given in LAC No.22 of 2008. We find substance in the argument of the learned advocate for the claimant that the reference Court ought to have taken into consideration the decision at Exhibit 59 in LAC No.60 of 2011, wherein also sale instances at Exhibit 17 and 18 were taken into consideration and by adding 10% increase per year, in the year 2006 as the Notification under Section 4 was issued in that case, the compensation for the acquired land of village Antargaon was given at Rs.2,21,444/- per hectare. The learned advocate for the claimant submitted that first appeal challenging the decision in LAC No.60 of 2011 was dismissed on the ground of delay. The learned advocate for the acquiring body confirms this fact. The land in LAC No.60 of 2011 was also acquired for submergence of Antargaon project. The learned advocate for the claimant submitted that first appeal challenging the decision in LAC No.60 of 2011 was dismissed on the ground of delay. The learned advocate for the acquiring body confirms this fact. The land in LAC No.60 of 2011 was also acquired for submergence of Antargaon project. It is pertinent to note here that while awarding compensation for fruit trees, the reference Court has relied upon the Exhibit 59 i.e. decision in LAC No.60 of 2011. In that view of the matter, we are of the considered view that the reference Court ought to have taken into consideration the rate of Rs.2,21,444/- given in LAC No. 60 of 2011 to the land in that case acquired from the same village and for the same project. The Notification under Section 4 in that case was of the year 2006. In the present case, Notification under Section 4 was issued on 13.03.2008, therefore, adding 10% increase per year, we hold the market value of the acquired land in the present case to be Rs.2,65,000/- per hectare. 11. While awarding compensation for fruit trees, it appears from the record that the reference Court has taken into consideration less number of orange trees by placing reliance on the award Exhibit 58. The Joint Measurement Report is placed on record at Exhibit 53. At the time of joint measurement, 800 big and 95 small orange trees were found in the acquired land of the claimant. The reference Court without assigning any reason has failed to place reliance on the Joint Measurement Repot, which was a reliable piece of evidence. According to us, the reference Court, therefore, has erred in awarding the compensation for less number of orange trees. The reference Court ought to have awarded compensation for 800 big and 95 small orange trees, which were found in the acquired land at the time of joint measurement and were accordingly recorded in the Joint Measurement Report. This Report is accepted by both sides. 12. The claimant has examined Dadan Borkar, Horticulturist as valuer of the orchard. He valued the orange trees at rate of Rs. 7618/-per tree in his valuation report, Exhibit 39. In the cross-examination, he admitted that the weather of Nagpur, Warud and Morshi is more suitable for orange fruits than the area of Darwha. 12. The claimant has examined Dadan Borkar, Horticulturist as valuer of the orchard. He valued the orange trees at rate of Rs. 7618/-per tree in his valuation report, Exhibit 39. In the cross-examination, he admitted that the weather of Nagpur, Warud and Morshi is more suitable for orange fruits than the area of Darwha. He also admitted that from medium soil, best quality of oranges are produced than from black soil. He could not say the distance between two plants of Santra and total number of Santra plants from the acquired land. He further admitted that the claimant had not produced any receipt of sale of any of the fruits from his orchard. He further admitted that for arriving at the exact age of a tree, Cortex Ring Method is a proper method, but he did not apply the said method. 13. The reference Court placed reliance on Exhibit 59 i.e. decision in LAC No. 60/2011 to arrive at a conclusion that for big orange trees, Rs. 3500/- compensation per tree needs to be awarded, for comparatively smaller size of orange tree, Rs. 2500/- per tree and for small orange trees, Rs. 1500/- per tree compensation must be granted. The said valuation, according to us is correct valuation as the same is given to the similarly situated claimants whose agriculture lands from Village, Antargaon were acquired for the same project. In the Joint Measurement Report, Exhibit 53, 800 big orange trees are recorded for which the claimant would be entitled for compensation at Rs. 3500/- per tree, since 95 small orange trees are also recorded, the claimant would be entitled for compensation at Rs. 1500/- per tree for said 95 small orange trees. 14. For the aforestated reasons, we hold that the claimant is entitled to receive compensation at Rs. 2,65,000/- per Hectare for the acquired land, an amount of Rs. 3500/- per orange tree for 800 trees and Rs. 1500 per tree for 95 orange trees. The point is answered accordingly. Hence, the following order. (i) The judgment of the reference Court in L.A.C. No. 90/2010 dated 5-8-2015 is partly modified. It is held that the claimant is entitled to receive compensation at the rate of Rs. 2,65,000/- per hectare for the acquired land, amount of Rs. 3,500/- per orange tree for 800 trees and Rs. 1500 per tree for 95 trees. (i) The judgment of the reference Court in L.A.C. No. 90/2010 dated 5-8-2015 is partly modified. It is held that the claimant is entitled to receive compensation at the rate of Rs. 2,65,000/- per hectare for the acquired land, amount of Rs. 3,500/- per orange tree for 800 trees and Rs. 1500 per tree for 95 trees. (ii) The benefit shall be admissible to the claimant in accordance with the provisions of Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. (iii) The additional amount of compensation be deposited by the acquiring body within a period of twelve weeks from today before the reference Court. (iv) Accordingly First Appeal No. 1148/2016 stands dismissed and First Appeal No. 425/2017 is partly allowed in aforesaid terms. (v) Parties to bear their own costs.