JUDGMENT : SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J. 1. First Appeal Nos.1360 of 2011, 1361 of 2011 and 1601 of 2015 are not on board. Upon being mentioned, taken on board. 2. The following lands of the appellants / claimants as shown in the chart were acquired by the State Government for the purpose of construction of Chakur Percolation Tank No.3 at Village Chakur, Taluka Chakur and District Latur. The Land Acquisition Officer passed an award on 28.05.1996 and awarded compensation @ Rs.336/- per Are i.e., Rs.13,440/- per acre to the acquired lands of the claimants. The learned Reference Court at Latur enhanced the amount of compensation and awarded compensation @ Rs.40,000/- per acre. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the common judgment and award passed by the learned Land Reference Court, Latur in L.A.R. Nos.268 of 2002, 269 of 2002, 270 of 2002, 271 of 2002, 272 of 2002, 273 of 2002, 274 of 2002, 275 of 2002 and 276 of 2002 dated 08.07.2008, the claimants have preferred these appeals. 3. The learned advocate for the appellants / claimants pointed out the impugned judgment and award as well as the pleadings of the parties. He submitted that the lands of the claimants were acquired on 28.03.1992 and after nine months i.e., 18.12.1992, sale instance- Exhibit-35 was executed in respect of land survey No.442 admeasuring 00 H 60 Are land for a consideration of Rs.1,08,000/- which comes to Rs.1800/- per Are i.e., Rs.72,000/- per acre. He further submitted that the learned Reference Court has not considered and fully relied upon the said sale exemplar Exhibit – 35 dated 18.12.1992 in its proper perspective and awarded meager amount of compensation @ Rs.40,000/- per acre i.e., Rs.1,00,000/- per hectare. He lastly prayed to allow the appeals by enhancing the amount of compensation. He relied upon the authority of Manohar and Others. Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, Diary No.26900 of 2023 decided on 28.07.2025, in which paragraph No.50 reads as under: 50. Having held thus, we, however, cannot lose sight of the aspect that the ten sale exemplars placed before the Reference Court by the claimants/Appellants are of small plots of land in Jintur town, each of them being less than 1 Hectare. The Reference Court, therefore, correctly came to the conclusion that while accepting the sale instances a reasonable reduction requires to be made. The Reference Court, therefore, correctly came to the conclusion that while accepting the sale instances a reasonable reduction requires to be made. As such, the land which is acquired being much larger in area, the Reference Court applied a deduction of 20% in the price determined. Being in agreement with the same, while accepting the sale exemplar at Sr. No. 4 dated 31st March 1990, and having market value of Rs. 72,900/- per Acre, we deem it appropriate to apply a deduction of 20% i.e., Rs. 14,580/- per Acre. 4. The learned AGP for the State strongly opposed the appeals. He submitted that the learned Reference Court after considering the entire material on record gave legal and correct reasons for not believing sale exemplar-Exhibit-35 and awarded reasonable amount of compensation to the claimants. He submitted that the reasons and findings of the learned Reference Court are legal and correct and no interference is warranted in it. He lastly prayed to dismiss the appeals. 5. Perused the Record and Proceedings, particularly the impugned judgment as well as the sale exemplar-Exhibit-35 which is of the highest price. It shows that the land in sale exemplar at Exhibit-35 is situated in one and the same village, therefore, the said sale exemplar Exhibit-35 has to be relied upon. The land in sale exemplar Exhibit-35 was purchased for plotting, however, the lands in question are acquired for the purpose of construction of Chakur Percolation Tank. Therefore, more consideration must have paid for it. Therefore, in view of the law laid down in the judgment of Manohar (Supra), it would be proper to deduct 20% amount out of the sale consideration of the sale exemplar-Exhibit-35 as it was used for plotting, therefore, higher price must have paid. If it is deducted, then it comes to Rs.69,120/- per acre which would be the reasonable amount of compensation as per the actual market value of the acquired land at the time of notification under Section 4 of the said land. The 7/12 extract of acquired lands shows that the claimants’ lands were semi irrigated as there was well situated in land Survey No.471 Exhibit-28. However, the land in sale exemplar-Exhibit 35 was dry land. Therefore, the claimants are entitled for the compensation of additional one and half time i.e., Rs.1,03,680/- per acre which is reasonable compensation. The 7/12 extract of acquired lands shows that the claimants’ lands were semi irrigated as there was well situated in land Survey No.471 Exhibit-28. However, the land in sale exemplar-Exhibit 35 was dry land. Therefore, the claimants are entitled for the compensation of additional one and half time i.e., Rs.1,03,680/- per acre which is reasonable compensation. The said sale exemplar- Exhibit 35 was not properly appreciated by the learned Reference Court, therefore, interference is warranted in the impugned judgment and award. The appeals therefore deserve to be partly allowed and the impugned judgment and award deserves to be partly set aside. Hence, the following Order: ::ORDER:: a. The appeals are partly allowed. b. The impugned judgment and award is partly set aside and modified as under: c. The appellants / claimants are entitled for the compensation @ Rs.1,03,680/- per acre for their acquired lands along with statutory benefits like interest etc. d. It is clarified that the appellants / claimants are not entitled for the interest for the period of delay, if any. Condoned by this Court. e. The enhanced amount of compensation be deposited within 12 weeks. f. If deficit Court fees is not paid, upon receiving the same, enhanced amount of compensation be paid to the claimants. g. Award be drawn up accordingly. h. Pending civil applications, if any, stand disposed of.