JUDGMENT : Heard. 2. First appeal No. 887/2011 is filed by original claimant for enhancement of compensation and First Appeal No. 852/2011 is filed by Acquiring Body challenging the order passed by Referal Court enhancing the amount of compensation. 3. I have heard both the parties. Considered record and judgments relied by both the parties. The present appeals are filed by claimants as well as Acquiring Body being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 30/11/2010, rendered by Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Buldhana in Land Acquisition Case No. 8/2007 filed by the claimant. The Referal Court partly allowed the claim of appellant/claimant and awarded total amount of Rs.2,12,500/- at the rate of Rs.3,61,000/- per hectare. The acquired land is in gat No. 388, admeasuring 1 hectare. It is acquired by Maharashtra Jivan Pradhikaran for Water Supply Scheme. The notification under Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act came to be issued on 05/07/2004. The award came to be passed on 24/08/2005. 4. It is submitted by learned Counsel for appellant/claimant that there is a well, pipe line. The Land Acquisition Officer granted Rs.1,81,500/- per hectare. Being aggrieved by the said award, the claimant filed reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act on 10/10/2005. In reference he claimed amount of Rs.8,00,000/- per hectare. There were two sale deeds of same village, filed before Referal Court i.e. Exh.27, a sale deed of 28/03/2005. The land in the said sale deed is gat No.2, admeasuring 40 R i.e. near about 1 Acre for sale consideration of Rs. 2,16,000/- per Acre. Another sale instance is Exh.28 of dated 10/06/2004, i.e. gat No. 100, area 31 R, for total consideration of amount of Rs.2,00,000/-. Thus, it comes to Rs.5,00,000/- per hectare. The first sale deed i.e. Exh.27, is of eight months after notification under Section 4, whereas, Exh. 28 is the sale deed, twenty five days prior to the notification. 5. The learned Referal Court though considered the sale deed, however, the amount was not granted as per that sale deed on the ground that the land in the said sale deed yielding cash crops and having irrigation and granted only amount of Rs.3,69,000/- per hectare instead of 5,00,000/- per hectare. 6. 5. The learned Referal Court though considered the sale deed, however, the amount was not granted as per that sale deed on the ground that the land in the said sale deed yielding cash crops and having irrigation and granted only amount of Rs.3,69,000/- per hectare instead of 5,00,000/- per hectare. 6. Learned Counsel for appellant has drawn my attention to paragraph No. 17 of the judgment, wherein, the learned Referal Court clearly observed that there is a well in the field for irrigation. The Land Acquisition Officer has not granted any amount towards well as the value of the well were not received by the Land Acquisition Officer. The learned Referal Court rightly appreciated that for that reason, the compensation towards well cannot be denied. However, granted only Rs25,000/-, compensation towards well. 7. My attention is also drawn by learned Counsel to the contents of sale deed Exh. 28, from which it is clear that the vendor is having only 11 Paise share and not total well in his ownership. Still, amount of consideration was Rs.2,00,000/- per Acre. 8. Learned Counsel Shri Kalwaghe for appellant/claimant relied on judgment in Chindha Fakira Patil (dead) through L.Rs. Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Jalgaon, (2011) 10 SCC 787 , wherein, Hon’ble Apex Court held that : “21. When it was not in dispute that there were wells in the acquired land, the mere fact that the appellants had not cultivated sugarcane or wheat cannot lead to an inference that the land was not irrigated and, in our view, there was no valid reason for the High Court to interfere with the finding recorded by the Reference Court that parts of the lands were Bagayat and for such land they were entitled to compensation @ Rs. 6 lacs per hectare.” 9. As against this, learned Counsel for respondent vehemently opposed the appeal and also submitted that the enhanced compensation by Referal Court itself is not proper. He has pointed out from the cross of claimant that he admitted that acquired land used to sub merge in the water of Yelgaon dam since 2001. He was not getting income from that land. Only this stray statement could not help the respondent, Acquiring Body. If his total evidence is perused, he has categorically stated that when the land was acquired, they were taking crops Soyabean and Wheat. He was not getting income from that land. Only this stray statement could not help the respondent, Acquiring Body. If his total evidence is perused, he has categorically stated that when the land was acquired, they were taking crops Soyabean and Wheat. Not only this, in cross itself, he deposed that there was a motor pump and he has placed on record electric bills to that effect. 10. The learned Counsel for respondent, Acquiring Body submitted that the sale deed instance of 10/06/2004, is concerned, the land is of superior quality and they were taking crops whole the year. 11. Learned Counsel relied on judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Application No. 5192/2002 (The Genereal Manager, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. Vs. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel and another). However, in my considered opinion, the facts are distinguishable as there were future sale transactions are considered while determining compensation. 12. The learned Counsel also relied on S.L.P. No. 4185/1997 (Satpal and others Vs. Union of India), reliance is misplaced by learned Counsel for respondent. In the said matter the claimants failed to explain as to how the price of land in question has jumped from Rs.56,470/- per bigha to Rs.1,34,666/- per bigha within a short span of time. The learned Counsel failed to demonstrate how this judgment is helpful to him, specifically when there is no other sale instances to compare with Exh.28 to say that there is any acute rise in the price. As such, the appeal filed by Acquiring Body i.e. First Appeal No. 852/2011, is liable to be dismissed and appeal filed by Claimant i.e. 887/2011 needs to be allowed. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order : ORDER 1) First Appeal No. 887/2011 is allowed. 2) First Appeal No. 852/2011 is dismissed. 3) The impugned judgment and award dated 30/11/2010 of Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Buldhana in Land Acquisition Case No. 8/2007, is hereby modified as under : i) The value of land is determined to Rs.5,00,000/- per hectare, accordingly compensation be awarded along with all other statutory benefits. ii) The Acquiring Body to deposit the entire compensation amount along with statutory interest as statutory benefits within a period of eight weeks with this Court. After deposit of the amount, appellant/claimant has permitted to withdraw the same.