JUDGMENT : 1. Admit. Heard finally with the consent of learned Advocates appearing for the parties. 2. This appeal is preferred against the judgment and award passed by the Reference Court, Darwha, District Yavatmal in Land Acquisition Case No.1030/2004, dated 17.12.2018. It was reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 3. The said reference was against the award dated 22.5.2000 in LAC No.15/47/1992-1993 of mouza Arni, Tahsil Arni, District Yavatmal. The Survey No.39/1, admeasuring 12 Hectare and 63 R land situated at village Arni, Tahsil Arni, District Yavatmal is adjacent to the road, out of it 25 R land was acquired for construction of Parsoda minor canal of Arunawati project at Arni. The notification was issued as per law. The award was drawn up and an amount of Rs.80,000/- per hectare for acquired land was awarded. It was meager amount. The objections were filed by the claimant. Therefore, reference was made. The Reference Court on merit held in last para No.20 of the impugned judgment that acquired land is having non-agricultural potentiality as on the date of notification. The said finding is not challenged by the respondents-State Government etc. 4. Learned Advocate for the appellant pointed out and submitted that an amount of compensation awarded to the appellant i.e. Rs.100/- per sq. ft. is unfair and not just. The Reference Court erred while concluding an amount of Rs.100/- (para no.21 of the impugned its judgment). He further submitted that in First Appeal No.589/2017 this Court in its judgment dated 1.8.2019 Markandeya Rashi Deosthan, Manpur Vs. State of Maharashtra and others observed in para Nos.5,6 and 7 as under : 5] In view of the judgment in First Appeal No. 781 of 2016 alongwith First Appeal No. 782 of 2016 and First Appeal No. 840 of 2016 dated 27.06.2019, all the appellants are entitled for compensation at the rate of Rs.275/per square feet. 6] In that view of the matter, First Appeal Nos. 589/2017, 212/2017, 587/2017 and 639/2017 are partly allowed. 7] Respondents/acquiring body are directed to pay compensation at the rate of Rs.275/per square feet for the acquired land of all the appellants/land owners in these appeals without deducting any development charges alongwith all statutory benefits and interest etc. 5. 6] In that view of the matter, First Appeal Nos. 589/2017, 212/2017, 587/2017 and 639/2017 are partly allowed. 7] Respondents/acquiring body are directed to pay compensation at the rate of Rs.275/per square feet for the acquired land of all the appellants/land owners in these appeals without deducting any development charges alongwith all statutory benefits and interest etc. 5. The land in question in the said judgment was acquired from the same village and during the same period, therefore, the trial Court erred and allowed the same rate to the present appellant in the said case. 6. Learned Advocate for the appellant is also relying upon the authority of State of Haryana and another Vs. Subhash Chander and others, 2023(5) SCC 435 in which para No.6 of it reads as under : “6. We have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length. We have gone through the impugned common judgment and order passed by the High Court and we have also gone through and considered the earlier decision of this Court in the case of Civil Appeal Nos. 11814-11864 of 2017 by which with respect to the lands acquired vide notification dated 25.01.2008, this Court determined the compensation at Rs. 2,38,00,000/- per acre. In the said judgment and order, this Court has specifically observed that the said judgment may not be treated as a precedent. However, it is required to be noted that even on merits also, this Court considered and accepted the sale instances produced on behalf of the land owners ranging between 2007 and 2008. Therefore, as such determination of the compensation at Rs. 2,38,00,000/- per acre with respect to the land acquired vide notification issued on 25.01.2008 can be said to be the base and considering the time gap between 2008 notification and 2010 notification, a suitable enhancement ranging between 8% to 15% is given which is held to be permissible as per the catena of decisions of this Court right from the decision in the case of Pehlad Ram Vs. HUDA; (2014) 14 SCC 778 up to the recent decision of this Court in the case of Ramrao Shankar Tapase (supra). HUDA; (2014) 14 SCC 778 up to the recent decision of this Court in the case of Ramrao Shankar Tapase (supra). However, at the same time considering the fact that in the present case with respect to the very village, the acquisition proceedings came to be initiated in the month of January, 2008, it will not be safe and/or prudent to grant the cumulative increase of 12%. In the facts and circumstances of the case and even considering the sale instances produced on record, we are of the opinion that if instead of 12% enhancement on Rs. 2,38,00,000/-, 10% increase is accepted it can be said to be a just compensation and it may meet the ends of justice.” 7. Learned Advocate for the appellant lastly submitted that considering the above judgments of this Court this appeal deserves to be allowed by awarding enhanced compensation i.e. per sq. ft. Rs.275/- for acquired land of appellant as per principle of the parity. He prayed to allow appeal. 8. Learned Advocate for the respondents submitted that the judgment and award of the Reference Court is legal and correct. It has considered all the relevant aspects and arrived at the conclusion as to the fair and correct amount of compensation. There is no scope for interference. Learned Advocate for the respondent No.3 is relying upon following authorities : (i) Chimanlal Hargovinddas Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Poona, (1988 AIR (SC) 1652) (a) Market value is based on material produced before it, (b) Plus and minus factors, (c) Concept of hypothetical purchase is to be applied. (ii) Uttar Pradesh Awas Evam Vikas Parishad Vs. Asha Ram (D) Thr.Lrs. and others, ( 2021(17) SCC 289 ) 29. The potentiality of the acquired land is one of the primary factors to be taken into consideration to determine the market value of the land. Potentiality refers to the capacity or possibility for changing or developing into the state of actuality. The market value of a property has to be determined while having due regard to its existing conditions with all the existing advantages and its potential possibility when led out in its most advantageous manner. The question whether a land has potential value or not primarily depends upon its condition, situation, use to which it is put or its reasonable capability of being put and also its proximity to residential, commercial or industrial areas/institutions. The question whether a land has potential value or not primarily depends upon its condition, situation, use to which it is put or its reasonable capability of being put and also its proximity to residential, commercial or industrial areas/institutions. The existing amenities like water, electricity as well as the possibility of their further extension, for instance whether near about town is developing or has prospects of development have to be taken into consideration. It also depends upon the connectivity and the overall development of the area. 44. Consequently, the present appeals are hereby allowed. The order passed by the High Court in the appeals preferred by the land owners is set aside and the compensation awarded by the Reference Court @ Rs.120/- per square yard apart from statutory benefits is restored. (iii) Viluben Jhalejar Contractor (D) by LRs. Vs. State of Gujarat (2005 (4) SCC 577) (a) Principles of determination of market value of the acquired land, (b) Positive Negative factors are to be considered. (iv) Atma Singh (died) through LRs and others Vs. State of Haryana and another ( 2008 (2) SCC 568 ) For ascertaining the market value of the land the potentiality of the land should be taken into consideration. (v) Sharad Shankarappa Halkude and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and others (2024 DGLS (Bom.) 2470) (a) Purpose for land acquired by government is relevant. (vi) State of Maharashtra Vs. Digamber Bhimashankar Tandale (1996 SCC (2) 583) Determination of compensation on square foot basis is illegal. (vii) Chandrashekar (D) by LRs. and others Vs. Land Acquisition Officer and another, ( AIR 2012 SC 446 ) 20. Before applying deductions for ascertaining the market value of the undeveloped acquired land, it would be necessary to classify the nature of the exemplar land, as also, the acquired land. This would constitute the second step in the process of determination of the correct quantum of deductions. The lands under reference may be totally undeveloped, partially developed, substantially developed or fully developed. In arriving at an appropriate classification of the nature of the lands which are to be compared, reference may be made to the developmental activities referred to by us in connection with the "first component", as also, the "second component" (in paragraph 17 above). The lands under reference may be totally undeveloped, partially developed, substantially developed or fully developed. In arriving at an appropriate classification of the nature of the lands which are to be compared, reference may be made to the developmental activities referred to by us in connection with the "first component", as also, the "second component" (in paragraph 17 above). The presence (or absence) of one or more of the components of development, would lead to an appropriate classification of the exemplar land, and the acquired land. Comparison of the classifications thus arrived, would depict the difference in terms of development, between the exemplar land and the acquired land. This exercise would lead to the final step. In the final step, the absence and presence of developmental components, based on such comparison, would constitute the basis for arriving at an appropriate percentage of deduction, necessary to balance the differential factors between the exemplar land and the acquired land. (viii) Trishala Jain and another Vs. State of Uttaranchal and another ( 2011 (6) SCC 47 ). (a) Guess and Guesstimate vis-a-vis Calculation and conjecture for deriving market value is permissible. (ix) Special Land Acquisition Officer and another Vs. M.K.Rafiq Saheb, (2011(6) Mh.L.J. 9. (a) Agricultural land when can be considered as non-agricultural in determination of compensation. 9. Following points arise for consideration : (i) Was the Reference Court illegal and incorrect in awarding Rs.100/- per sq. ft. as compensation to the land of the appellant ? (ii) Are appellant entitled for enhance of amount on the basis of principle of parity in view of the judgment of Markandeya Rashi Deosthan, Manpur Vs. State of Maharashtra, in First Appeal No.589/2017, decided on 1.8.2019 ? 10. Perused the impugned judgment of the Reference Court. 11. The main objection of the respondents is that the land is not acquired for the same purpose, therefore, discrimination in awarding the compensation by the trial Court is justified. It is admitted fact that land acquired in First Appeal No.589/2017 was for the purpose of constructing a by-pass road and land acquired of this appellant is for the purpose of construction of Parsoda Minor Canal Arunawati Project, Arni, District Yavatmal. These lands are situated in one and same area. 12. Article 14 of the Constitution of India guarantees and affirms equality before law and prohibits the discrimination. These lands are situated in one and same area. 12. Article 14 of the Constitution of India guarantees and affirms equality before law and prohibits the discrimination. The Reference Court has held that there is commercial potentiality to the land of the appellant and the said finding is not challenged neither by filing an appeal nor by cross-objections. Thus, only because the property in dispute is not acquired for the same purposes which are situated in one and same village. No inequality and discrimination while determining amount of compensation is permissible in such fact situation as per Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 13. The nature of property is most important than the purpose for which it is acquired. The property of appellant has commercial potentiality. Therefore, considering this aspect and the law laid down in the case of First Appeal No.589/2017 by this Court is certainly applicable to the appellant’s case for awarding same rate of compensation. Thus, different purpose for which the land acquired is not decisive criteria to discriminate and determine different amount of compensation to the farmers of same village of same area. Therefore, above case laws cited on behalf of the respondents are not useful to them in the different context of this appeal. 14. In view of above observations, this Court is of opinion that in the similar fact and circumstance of the case the appellant is entitled for enhanced compensation at the rate of Rs.275/- per sq. ft. for his acquired land without deducting any development charges alongwith all statutory benefits and interest etc. in view of the judgment in First Appeal No.589/2017 cited supra. Therefore, Point No.(i) and (ii) are answered as ‘Yes’. 15. The appeal, therefore, deserves to be allowed. The impugned judgment and award deserves to be partly set aside and modified. Hence, the argument of learned Advocate for the respondent is not acceptable. Hence, following order : ORDER (i) This appeal is allowed. (ii) The impugned judgment and award dated 17.12.2018, passed by the Reference Court i.e. Civil Judge, Senior Division at Darwha, in Land Acquisition Case No.1030/2004, is set aside and modified as under : (a) The appellant is entitled for Rs.275/- per sq. ft. for the acquired land in question without deducting any development charges along with all statutory benefits and interest etc. ft. for the acquired land in question without deducting any development charges along with all statutory benefits and interest etc. The respondent No.3 shall deposit the enhanced amount accordingly within six months from the date of this judgment before the Reference Court. (b) The appeal is disposed of. (c) No costs.