JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. Nakshane, learned counsel for the cross objector, Mr. Kadu, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and Ms. Deshmukh, learned AGP for the respondent Nos.2 and 3/State. 2. The appeal challenges the judgment of the learned Reference Court dated 16.09.2011 in respect of agricultural land bearing Gat No.365/2 admeasuring 1.57 H.R. for Village Kolhi, on account of submergence in the Bembla River Project, a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, in respect of which, was issued in the Official Gazette for the State of Maharashtra on 05.06.2003. The award was passed on 22.09.2005, granting total compensation of Rs.65,920/- per hectare, which has been enhanced by the learned Reference Court by the judgment dated 16.09.2011 to Rs.1,70,000/- per hectare for agricultural land. 3. At the outset, it is necessary to note, that the appeal filed by the acquiring body against the judgment of the learned Reference Court, has been withdrawn by them. 4. Mr. Nakshane, learned counsel for the cross objector, has strongly relied upon the judgment of the learned Reference Court in L.A.C. No. 396/2007, Janardhan Maroti Sahare & Ors. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors., which also is in respect of land bearing Gat No. 105 admeasuring 1.21 HR of Village Kolhi in the same project, from the same notification, in which the learned Reference Court, has enhanced the compensation for agricultural land at the rate of Rs.2,68,000/- per hectare. First Appeal No. 954/2017 (The Executive Engineer Bembla Project Division Vs. Janardhan Maroti Sahare & Ors.), has been withdrawn, which has been recorded in the judgment dated 12.10.2018 by this Court, in view of which, it is apparent, that the present respondent No.1 has accepted the rate of Rs.2,68,000/- per hectare as the rate for agricultural land in Village Kolhi. 5. Though, it is tried to be contended by Mr. Kadu, learned counsel for the respondent No.1, that the land in the present case was a dry crop land and that is the point of distinction why the rate of Rs. 5. Though, it is tried to be contended by Mr. Kadu, learned counsel for the respondent No.1, that the land in the present case was a dry crop land and that is the point of distinction why the rate of Rs. 2,68,000/- per hectare ought not to be granted, however a perusal of the judgment in Land Acquisition Case No. 396/2007 would indicate, that the land in that case was also a dry crop land, which is also the position in the present matter (para 12 of the judgment of the learned Reference Court), and therefore, there is no point of distinction available on this count. There is no other material brought to my notice by Mr. Kadu, learned counsel for the respondent No.1, either from the evidence or from the document on record to enable me to take a different view, considering which, it would be appropriate to enhance the rate of agricultural land to Rs. 2,68,000/- per hectare. 6. Hence, the Cross Objection is allowed by enhancing the rate of agricultural land to Rs. 2,68,000/- per hectare 7. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly.