JUDGMENT : Sanjay A. Deshmukh, J. 1. Heard. Admit. Heard finally with consent of the learned Advocates for the parties. 2. This appeal is preferred against the judgment and award passed by Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pandharkawada (Kelapur) dated 29.11.2005 in Land Acquisition Case No.128/2002 (Old LAC No.39/1995). 3. The land bearing Survey No.51/3, admeasuring 0.36 R., situated at Wani town, District Yavatmal of the claimant was acquired for the construction of Chikhalgaon-Naigaon road (By pass) near Wani town for which Notification under Section 4 came to be issued on 15.08.1991 as per the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. As per the award dated 16.12.1994, the Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation of Rs.25,000/- per hectare for acquired land. Being aggrieved by that judgment and award as it was inadequate compensation, a reference seeking enhancement of compensation was moved under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 4. According to land owners, the valuation of the acquired land and the actual damage caused was not properly appreciated and valued. After appreciating the evidence, the learned Reference Court enhanced the amount of compensation @ Rs.65,000/- per hectare to the claimant. Being aggrieved, the claimant/appellant filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation amount. 5. Heard learned Advocates for both sides. 6. Learned Advocate for the appellant relied upon the judgment passed by this Court in First Appeal No.377/2006 (Mukeshkumar Hiralalji Hirani Vs. The State of Maharashtra) dated 21.11.207. He also relied upon the judgment of the Reference Court passed in L.A.C. No.129/2002 (Mukeshkumar Hiralalji Hirani Vs. The State of Maharashtra) dated 06.03.2018, in which compensation @ Rs.13/- per square feet for the acquired land was granted. Therefore, he submitted that same rate of compensation be granted to the appellants. 7. Perused the judgment passed by learned Reference Court as well as above referred judgments filed by the appellants. 8. It is admitted fact that the appellant preferred this appeal against the judgment, which is a common judgment, passed in L.A.C. 128/2002 (Old LAC No.39/1995) and L.A.C. No.129/2002 (Old LAC No.40/1995). The claimant – Mukeshkumar Hiralalji Hiranhi in L.A.C. No.129/2002 had filed a First Appeal No.377/2006 in the High Court against the common judgment, in which, as per order dated 21.11.2017, the L.A.C. No.129/2002 has been remanded back to the Reference Court for fresh trial. The claimant – Mukeshkumar Hiralalji Hiranhi in L.A.C. No.129/2002 had filed a First Appeal No.377/2006 in the High Court against the common judgment, in which, as per order dated 21.11.2017, the L.A.C. No.129/2002 has been remanded back to the Reference Court for fresh trial. After appreciating the evidence, the learned Reference Court in L.A.C. No.129/2002, enhanced the amount of compensation @ Rs.13/- per square feet for the acquired land along with statutory benefits. The land acquired in this appeal as well as acquired in above referred judgment is one and same village and acquired for the same purpose. Therefore, the appellants are also entitled for same rate of compensation. 9. Considering this fact and applying the principle of parity, the appeal deserves to be partly allowed. The impugned judgment and award of the Reference Court deserves to be partly set aside and modified. Hence the following order : ORDER (i) The appeal is partly allowed. (ii) The appellants are entitled for compensation at the rate of Rs.13/- (Rs. Thirteen only) per Square Feet for the acquired land bearing Survey No.51/3, admeasuring 0.36 R., situated at Wani town, District Yavatmal after deducting 25% Area towards development charges along with other statutory benefits, except the period for which the delay was caused in filing the appeal and it was condoned by this Court by order dated 05.08.2024. (iii) The acquiring body is directed to calculate the appropriate compensation as per above rate and deposit the remaining amount in this Court within six months. (iv) The appellants are required to pay the deficit Court fee, if any, on the enhanced amount of compensation. (v) After depositing the amount, the appellants are entitled to withdraw the same and no any further application and order on it is required for directions to the Registry to pay that amount to the appellants. The Registry is directed accordingly to pay that amount. 10. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.