JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal is preferred mainly on two grounds. First ground is 16 times more enhancement is granted by the Reference Court and second is Claim of the original claimants was not within limitation. 2. Brief facts of the case are as under :- Land admeasuring 1H 42 R situated at survey No.239 at Washi, Tq. Bhoom was acquired for the construction of New Girls High School at Washi. The Special Land Acquisition Officer (for short ‘the S.L.A.O.’) granted compensation at the rate of Rs.16,000/- per Hector. Being aggrieved by meagre amount of compensation awarded by the S.L.A.O. present respondents filed suit before Civil Judge, Senior Division, Osmanabad (for short ‘the Reference Court’) and claimed compensation at rate of Rs.4/- per Sq. Ft. The Reference Court allowed the reference partly and granted compensation at the rate of Rs. 2.50/- per Sq. Ft. for the area admeasuring 1H 88 R and other consequential benefits. Against the said judgment and award passed by the Reference Court this appeal. 3. It is contention of learned Counsel for appellant that, the reference was not filed within limitation. The award was passed by the S.L.A.O. on 25th October, 1983 and reference was filed by claimants/respondents on 16th June, 1984 i.e. after lapse of 7 months and 22 days. There is delay of 1 month 22 days for filing the reference but this fact was not considered by the Reference Court. The Reference Court has considered acquired land as agricultural land and granted the compensation considering it as non-agricultural land which is wrong and erroneous. Hence, requested to allow the appeal. 4. It is contention of learned Counsel for respondents that, the Reference Court has framed the issue of limitation and has held that the reference was within limitation. The rate granted by the Reference Court is on the basis of sale-deed produced before the Reference Court. In the sale-deed the market price of the plot was more than Rs.4/- per Sq. Ft. but the Reference Court has considered it at lower side at the rate of Rs.2.50/- per Sq. Ft. Hence, the order passed by the Reference Court is legal and valid. 5. I have heard all the learned Counsel. Perused judgment and order passed by the Reference Court. 6. The issues involved in this appeal are whether the reference fled was within limitation or not? Ft. Hence, the order passed by the Reference Court is legal and valid. 5. I have heard all the learned Counsel. Perused judgment and order passed by the Reference Court. 6. The issues involved in this appeal are whether the reference fled was within limitation or not? and whether excessive enhancement is awarded by the Reference Court. 7. The Reference Court has framed the issue No.3 regarding limitation and answered it in affirmative. The Reference Court has observed that the reference was filed within time. It appears from record that, under protest application was filed on 7th May, 1984 which is at Exh.28 and the reference petition was filed on 16th June, 1984. It shows that, the reference was filed within six weeks’ from the date of obtaining the amount under protest. The S.L.A.O. received the reference and transmitted the same to the District Court, Osmanabad vide his letter at Exh.1, in which it has been clearly mentioned that, petitioner had obtained the amount under protest and reference application is received within time. It shows that, the reference was in time. Hence, I do not find any merit in the contention of learned Counsel for appellant that, reference was not within limitation. 8. In respect of issue of excessive enhancement granted to the respondents, it has come in the evidence of petitioner at Exh.30 that, acquired land is adjacent to village Washi and village Washi is big village, Schools, High School. Technical College, Acts and Science College are available in the village. His land is at the distance of 250 to 300 Ft. from S.T. Stand Washi, Washi Para road is adjacent to his land. The market price of the land is Rs.4/- per Sq. Ft. There are houses adjacent to the acquired land since 1980. Petitioner had filed certified copies of sale instances at Exh.26 and 27 on record. 9. Exh.26 shows that, 1 Guntha land was sold to Rs.2,000/-. From Exh.27 it reveals that on 15th December 1990 plot of 40 Ft. x 25 Ft. sold for Rs.2500/-. The S.L.A.O. has mentioned in his award page No.7 last line and page No.8 first line that the land under acquisition is adjacent to village Gavthan, Washi. He has awarded compensation on the basis of agricultural land but has not at all mentioned anything about the nature and quality of the land and crops taken in the land. The S.L.A.O. has mentioned in his award page No.7 last line and page No.8 first line that the land under acquisition is adjacent to village Gavthan, Washi. He has awarded compensation on the basis of agricultural land but has not at all mentioned anything about the nature and quality of the land and crops taken in the land. When it observed that, the acquired land is situated near the village, there are houses constructed near the acquired land, the sale instances shows that, the case of Rs.4/- per Sq.Ft. was awarded and these sale instances were prior to the acquisition of land, hence, the case of Rs.2.50/- per Sq.Ft. considered by the Reference Court is just and proper. 10. In view of the above, I pass the following order :- ORDER (a) Appeal is dismissed. (b) No order as to costs.