JUDGMENT : The present appeal is filed by the original claimant for enhancement of compensation. It is the contention of the appellant that she is owner and possessor of land bearing Survey No. 22/2 admeasuring 0.68 HR situated at Mouja Navsari, Tah. and District Amravati, which was needed in the project of construction of Akoli diversion road. On 24/01/2000, the land acquisition proceedings vide L.A. Case No. 102/47/99-2000 Navasari had been started. Taking into consideration, the provisions of Section 126(4) of the Town Planning Act, notice under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act had been issued on 28/12/2000 and the award came to be declared on 28/12/2002. The Municipal Corporation, Amravati awarded an amount of Rs.6,48,000/- per hector. The claimant being unsatisfied filed the Reference. 2. It is contended by the appellant that learned Reference Court (i.e. 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Sr. Dn., Amravati) without considering the judgement passed in similar circumstances, awarded an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- per hector only in L.A.C. No. 243/2007. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant has drawn my attention to Annexure ‘B’ i.e. judgment in Reference in LAC No. 77/2005. It is contended that the same learned Judge awarded Rs.200/- per square meter (It means 6,800 X Rs.200/- sq.mtr. = Rs.13,60,000/-) for adjacent land. The learned counsel also drawn my attention to the village and project for which land is acquired, which is same in the said LAC. The plot from field Survey No. 23 is adjacent to the plot of present appellant. It can be seen from the ‘Map’ at Exh. 51. As such, the appellant is claiming on the ground of parity to award the same compensation in respect of his plot. 4. As against this, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the appeal on the ground that the reasons are independently recorded by the learned Reference Court and awarded total amount of Rs.8,00,000/- per hector, which is on the basis of finding recorded. It is contended that considering the location of village Navsari which is situated after dumping ground of Amravati on Walgaon road, it can be seen that though the land of petitioner is at the distance of 5 to 6 Km. from Amravati city, there are least chance of development due to dumping ground. This fact is observed by learned Reference Court in its judgment in para 17 of L.A.C. No. 243/2007. from Amravati city, there are least chance of development due to dumping ground. This fact is observed by learned Reference Court in its judgment in para 17 of L.A.C. No. 243/2007. Moreover, the petitioner had not placed on record any sale instance of agricultural land. Therefore, learned Reference Court find it appropriate to grant little more amount than what the Land Acquisition Officer awarded. 5. I have heard contentions of both the parties, perused the impugned judgment and Record & Proceedings and considered the citations relied on by the parties. 6. There is no dispute about date of notification and date of award. Admittedly, out of field Survey No. 22/2, 0.68 H.R. of land of owner (appellant) was acquired. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded Rs.6,48,000/- per hector and in Reference, it was enhanced upto Rs.8,00,000/- per hector. If the judgment in LAC No. 77/2005 is perused, the owner of field Survey No. 23 admeasuring 1 H 28 R of village Navsari, is one Sarladevi Sikchi. The respondent Municipal Corporation acquired 31 R of land from field Survey No. 23 in LAC Case No. 102/47/99-2000 of Mouja Navsari. In the present matter, the owner is Smt. Kamlabai Parihar having ownership and possession over field Survey No. 22/2 of village Navsari and the award is passed in LAC No. 102/47/99-2000 of village Navsari on 28/12/2002. The land was acquired in both the matters for construction of road. In the matter of Sarladevi Sikchi, she had placed on record the sale instances of adjoining plots at Exh. 36 to 45 showing that adjoining lands are converted into non-agricultural land. The amount of compensation in respect of field Survey No. 24/1 is @ Rs.18,50,000/- per hector whereas the compensation awarded in case of her land (i.e. Sikchi) is @ Rs.6,48,000/- per hector. Considering the evidence on record, the learned Reference Court (i.e. learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Amravati) awarded rate of Rs.200/- per sq.mtr. It is also observed in his judgment that it had come into his notice that though the petitioner has not filed documents for conversion of her agricultural land into non-agricultural land, potentiality of field Survey No. 23 is of non-agricultural land and it is useful for commercial and residential purpose. It is also observed in his judgment that it had come into his notice that though the petitioner has not filed documents for conversion of her agricultural land into non-agricultural land, potentiality of field Survey No. 23 is of non-agricultural land and it is useful for commercial and residential purpose. This judgment is passed by the said Presiding Officer on 04/02/2010 whereas the judgment passed in present appeal also passed by same Presiding Judge on 16/09/2010, as such, subsequent to passing of judgment in Sikchi’s matter. However, in the present matter, claim was rejected on the ground that there is least chance of development due to dumping ground as village Navsari is situated after dumping ground of Amravati on Walgaon road in similar set of geographical situations. It is unjustified not to consider the claim on the ground of parity. In the present matter also, the appellant has placed on record Exh. 35 to 49 sale instances. She has also placed on record Valuer’s report. Admittedly, it is situated within the limits of Municipal Corporation. Therefore, the claim of the appellant on the ground of parity is justified. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant relied on the judgment (citation) in the case of Bayaji Tatya Kalunge V/s. State of Maharashtra reported in 2007 (2) ALL MR 316 in support of his contention, wherein this Court has held that, “the lands which are situated in the same village and are acquired for the same purpose under the same notification, then the appellants (claimants) are entitled to compensation at the same rate, on the ground of parity, if awarded in any L.A.R. out of that group.” 8. The contention of the respondents is that, there is no comparable sale instance placed on record and it has to be seen that village Navsari is beyond dumping ground. As such, there is least chance of development. However, as held earlier in the other matter in respect of adjacent plot, already amount of Rs.200/- per sq.mtr. is fixed by the learned Reference Court in the said award, is also complied with and has not been challenged by Municipal Corporation. If the dumping ground would be the reason, then the award passed for the land involved in another LAC No. 77/2005, is exactly similarly situated land adjacent to the land in the present appeal. is fixed by the learned Reference Court in the said award, is also complied with and has not been challenged by Municipal Corporation. If the dumping ground would be the reason, then the award passed for the land involved in another LAC No. 77/2005, is exactly similarly situated land adjacent to the land in the present appeal. As such, I do not see any reason not to grant enhance compensation in the present matter, on the ground of parity. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order:- ORDER (1) The appeal is partly allowed. (2) The Judgment and Award dated 16/09/2010 passed by learned Reference Court i.e. 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Amravati in L.A.C. No. 243/2007 is hereby modified and value of land is fixed @ Rs.200/- per sq. mtr. The claimant be awarded compensation @ Rs.200/- per sq.mtr. for an acquired 0.68 H.R. land. (3) The respondents are directed to pay compensation to the petitioner/appellant @ Rs.200/- per sq.mtr. along interest, solatium and other statutory benefits as per law and rules of Land Acquisition Act. (4) The respondent nos. 1 to 3 to pay the proportionate costs in the appeal and bear their own costs. (5) The award be passed accordingly. The appeal stands disposed of.