JUDGMENT/ORDER 1. Heard finally. 2. This appeal and cross objection arises out of the judgment and award passed by the learned Adhoc District Judge-2, Washim (For short 'the Reference Court') dtd. 21/6/2011 and therefore the same are being disposed of by common judgment. The Reference Court by the impugned judgment and award enhanced the compensation in respect of land from Rs.23, 000.00 per hectare to Rs.2, 00, 000.00 per hectare and further directed to pay compensation at the rate of Rs.2000.00 per tree in respect of 96 orange trees. 3. Background facts: In First appeal, Respondent No.1- Chunnilal Ghashiram Kubre (deceased) is the original claimant. During the pendency of the land acquisition case he died and his legal heirs were brought on record. Therefore, legal heirs of respondent No.1 are hereinafter referred to as 'the claimants'. The land admeasuring 1.38 H.R. from Survey No. 126 situated at Mouza Waigaul, Tal Manora, District Washim was acquired for the purpose of Waigaul Dam Project. The notification under Sec. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act of 1894, ) was published on 30/4/1998. After completion of the required procedure, the Special Land Acquisition Officer passed award on 16/12/2000. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded the compensation at the rate of Rs.23, 000.00 per hectare for the acquired land and Rs.2, 480.00 for orange trees. 4. Respondent No.1-Chunnilal Kubre was not satisfied by this award. Therefore, he filed reference application before the Collector and claimed enhancement in the compensation. The Collector, forwarded the reference to the District Court, Washim. 5. Before the Reference Court the appellant filed the written statement and opposed the claim. It was contended that the acquired land was of dry crop medium quality land. The compensation, according to the appellant, awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, was just, proper and reasonable. It was contended that compensation claimed by the claimants was excessive and exorbitant. 6. The Reference Court enhanced the compensation to Rs.2, 00, 000.00 per hectare and awarded Rs.2000.00 per tree in respect of 96 orange trees. The State and acquiring body being aggrieved by the enhancement of the compensation with regard to the land and orange trees has filed the appeal. The claimants/LR's of respondent No.1, being aggrieved by the inadequacy of the compensation, in respect of land and orange trees, have filed cross objection. 7. The State and acquiring body being aggrieved by the enhancement of the compensation with regard to the land and orange trees has filed the appeal. The claimants/LR's of respondent No.1, being aggrieved by the inadequacy of the compensation, in respect of land and orange trees, have filed cross objection. 7. Heard learned Advocate Mr Vinay Dahat for the appellant, learned Advocate Mr Sajeed Varshani for legal heirs of respondent No.1 and Mr M. A. Kadu, learned AGP for the State. Perused the record and proceedings. Following points fall for my determination: i] Whether enhancement of the compensation in respect of the land granted by the Reference Court was just, proper and reasonable? ii] Whether the compensation granted by the Reference Court in respect of orange trees is inadequate? 8. Learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that as per the valuer report the compensation awarded in respect of the land at the rate of Rs.2, 00, 000.00 per hectare is just and reasonable. Learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that in respect of the similarly situated lands in First Appeal No. 581 of 2007 alongwith Cross objection No. 1 of 2008 (The State of Maharashtra and others .v/s. Harichand Bhasu Rathod, decided on 23/3/2016) the compensation awarded for the land was Rs.89, 500.00 per acre (Rs.2, 23, 750.00 per hectare). Learned Advocate submitted that valuation of tees as claimed by the claimants is baseless and exaggerated without considering the age, expenditure and fluctuating market rates. Learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that therefore the compensation awarded by the Reference Court is not proper. 9. Learned Advocate for the claimants/legal heirs of respondent No.1 submitted that as far as compensation in respect of land is concerned the case of the claimant would be covered by the decision in First Appeal No. 581 of 2007 and it is based on valuation report Exh. 72. Learned Advocate relying upon decision in First Appeal No. 509 of 2014 alongwith Cross objection No. 18 of 2017 (Narendra Tukaram Pawankar and Another .v/s. V.I.D.C., Washim, decided on 20/12/2018) submitted that the decision in FA No. 581 of 2007 was made the basis to determine the value of the orange trees. It is pointed that the value of the orange trees was awarded at the rate of Rs.4, 000.00 per tree. It is pointed that the value of the orange trees was awarded at the rate of Rs.4, 000.00 per tree. Learned Advocate further submitted that the Reference Court has not recorded justifiable reasons for rejecting the valuation report Exh. 72 in respect of orange trees. Learned Advocate without prejudice submitted that the Reference Court, by relying upon the valuers report Exh.72, ought to have granted compensation at the rate of Rs.2250.00 for each orange trees. Learned Advocate therefore submitted that in this case the compensation awarded by the Reference Court at the rate of Rs.2000.00 per orange trees is not reasonable and is required to be enhanced. 10. Learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that the joint measurement report, relied upon by the claimants, indicates that there were 96 orange trees and the age of the trees was 5 to 6 years. Learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that the Reference Court has rightly rejected the report of the valuer Exh. 72, wherein the value of each orange tree was shown as Rs.2250.00. Learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that in the earlier decisions relied upon by the claimants the relief was granted by inadvertence or mistake and therefore same will not create legal right in favour of the claimants to claim the compensation. In order to support this submission he has relied upon decision of the Apex Court in the case of Basawaraj and Another .v/s. Special Land Acquisition Officer, (2013) 14 SCC 81 . In this case, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that if the wrong or illegality or irregularity had been committed in earlier proceedings, then similarly situated persons cannot invoke jurisdiction of Courts for repeating or multiplying such illegality. 11. As far as the agricultural land is concerned, the issue has been settled in view of the above decisions in the above First Appeals. As far as the orange trees are concerned, it is the contention of the claimant that there were 110 orange trees. The Reference Court has recorded a finding on the basis of the evidence that there were only 96 orange trees in the acquired land. In this case, the valuer has deposed that age of the trees was 5 to 6 years The valuer valued the trees at the rate of Rs.2250.00 per tree. The Reference Court has recorded a finding on the basis of the evidence that there were only 96 orange trees in the acquired land. In this case, the valuer has deposed that age of the trees was 5 to 6 years The valuer valued the trees at the rate of Rs.2250.00 per tree. The reference Court considering the judgment in Land acquisition Case No. 19 of 2005 and Land Acquisition Case No.424 of 2003 has awarded the compensation at the rate of Rs.2000.00 per orange tree. It is to be noted that the Reference Court has not recorded justifiable reasons for rejecting the report of the valuer Exh. 72 for determining compensation of orange trees. The valuer in his report has taken all the factors into consideration and opined that the value of each tree was Rs.2250.00. In my view, the Reference Court ought to have awarded the price per tree as arrived at by the valuer. 12. Learned Advocate for the claimants/legal heirs of respondent No.1 relying upon the decisions in the above First Appeals submitted that the claimants would be entitled to get the compensation at the rate of Rs.4000.00 per tree. Learned Advocate pointed out that trees in the above appeals and the trees in this appeal are similar in all respects. In my view, this cannot be accepted. Claimants cannot claim parity on the basis of such judgment in respect of the orange trees. Various factors are required to be considered while deciding the value/ price of the orange trees. The valuer of the claimants has stated in his report that the price of per tree would come to Rs.2250.00. In my view, therefore the learned Advocate for the appellant is justified in relying upon the decision in the case of Basawaraj and Another .v/s. Special Land Acquisition Officer (supra) to contend that the price of the orange trees fixed in the above appeals cannot be granted in respect of the orange trees of the claimant. In my view, this submission is fully supported by the evidence as well as by law. The contention of the claimants for enhancement at the rate of Rs.4000.00 per orange trees is therefore rejected. However, considering the facts and circumstances I do not see any reason to discard and disbelieve the report of the valuer. In my view, this submission is fully supported by the evidence as well as by law. The contention of the claimants for enhancement at the rate of Rs.4000.00 per orange trees is therefore rejected. However, considering the facts and circumstances I do not see any reason to discard and disbelieve the report of the valuer. As per the report of the valuer, the claimants would be entitled to get compensation at the rate of Rs.2250.00 per orange tree in respect of 96 orange trees. 13. Learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that the Reference Court has granted the interest under Sec. 28 of the Act of 1894 from the date of taking of possession. Learned Advocate, relying upon a decision of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of State of Maharashtra .v/s. Kailash Shiva Rangari, 2016 (3) Mh.L.J. 457 . has submitted that the claimants/LR's of respondent No.1 would be entitled to get interest from the date of the award at the rate of 9% p.a. for first year and thereafter at the rate of 15% p.a. till realization of the entire amount of compensation. In the case of State of Maharashtra .vs/. Kailash (supra) it is held that if the possession of land under acquisition is taken before the notification under Sec. 4(1) of the Act of 1894 is published and/or before the award is passed, the land owner would be entitled for interest as per Sec. 34 necessarily from the date of passing of the award under Sec. 11 of the said Act, except in cases where the possession is taken in accordance with Sec. 17 of the said Act, and in that situation only, the provision of Sec. 34 of the said Act shall start operating from the date of possession. In this case, therefore, the claimants would be entitled to get interest from the date of the award under Sec. 28 of the Act of 1894 at the rate of 9% p.a. for the first year and thereafter at the rate of 15 % p.a. Clause (5) of the impugned order is, therefore, required to be modified. Accordingly, I answer point Nos.1 and 2 in the affirmative. 14. The First appeal stands dismissed. The cross objection is partly allowed. 15. The impugned judgment and order passed by the Reference Court, dtd. Accordingly, I answer point Nos.1 and 2 in the affirmative. 14. The First appeal stands dismissed. The cross objection is partly allowed. 15. The impugned judgment and order passed by the Reference Court, dtd. 21/6/2011, awarding compensation at the rate of Rs.2, 00, 000.00 per hectare for acquisition of 1.38 H.R. land out of Survey No. 126, is maintained. It is modified in respect of Orange trees. 16. The compensation for Orange trees is enhanced. The claimants/LR's of respondent No.1 are entitled to receive the compensation at the rate of Rs.2250.00 per tree in respect of 96 orange trees. 17. If the claimants have already received the amount of compensation, then on the balance outstanding the claimants would be entitled to receive interest at the rate of 9 % per annum under Sec. 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for the period of one year from the date of award and for the period thereafter @ of 15 % per annum till full realization of the amount. 18. The other statutory entitlements, as are granted by the Reference Court, shall remain intact. 19. The appellant is directed to deposit the enhanced amount of compensation within twelve weeks. The amount already deposited by the appellant be deducted from the enhanced amount of compensation. 20. The claimants/legal heirs of respondent No.1 shall be permitted to withdraw the entire amount of compensation alongwith interest, if any, accrued thereon. 21. The appeal and cross objection stand disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. 22. In view of disposal of the appeal and cross objection, the civil applications, pending if any, shall stand disposed of.