JUDGMENT : (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) This appeal is filed by the claimant challenging the judgment and award dated 13.07.2012 passed in LAC No.157/2009 by the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Harihar (hereinafter referred to as 'the Reference Court') seeking for higher compensation. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Reference Court. 3. The brief facts leading to the filing of this appeal are that the claimant’s lands measuring 1 acre 28 guntas in Sy.No.43/P4 and 15.5 guntas in Sy.No.35/P2 situated at Kodachagondanahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Honnalli Taluk, was acquired by the respondents for the purpose of the Upper Tunga Project. The Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) determined the market value of the land at Rs.29,333/- per acre. Upon reference, the Reference Court recorded the evidence. The other claimants in the common judgment were examined as PWs-1 and 2 and Exs.P1 to P22 were marked. The respondent did not adduce any evidence but with consent, got marked copy of the award as Ex.R1. The Reference Court, on appreciation of the evidence on record, re- determined the market value of the lands in Sy.No.35/P2 and Sy.No.43/P4 at Rs.1,04,500/- per acre along with all statutory benefits. Aggrieved by the same, the claimant has filed this appeal seeking higher compensation. 4. Sri.Nagarajappa A, learned counsel for the claimant submits that the impugned judgment and award is without considering the evidence on record in its proper perspective. It is submitted that the Reference Court did not consider the earlier judgments of this Court in MFA Nos.1556/2010, 6788/2012, 7005/2007, 7004/2007 and 7007/2007, wherein the Court fixed the market value of the nearby lands at Rs.150/- per sq. ft. It is further submitted that the claimant's lands in Sy.No.43/P4 and Sy.No.35/P2 at Kodachagondanahalli Village, Honnalli Taluk, are similar in nature and have the same potential as those lands. The lands are only about 8 to 10 kilometres away from Alkola village where similar lands were acquired for the same purpose of Upper Tunga Project. Therefore, the claimant also deserves the same rate of compensation. It is further submitted that valuable trees like tamarind, areca nut, and bevu trees were standing on the acquired lands but the Special Land Acquisition Officer had given very low compensation for them. This should have been properly considered while fixing the total market value. Therefore, the claimant also deserves the same rate of compensation. It is further submitted that valuable trees like tamarind, areca nut, and bevu trees were standing on the acquired lands but the Special Land Acquisition Officer had given very low compensation for them. This should have been properly considered while fixing the total market value. It is also submitted that the co-ordinate Bench of this Court has awarded higher compensation to the lands where areca nut and other trees are grown. Hence, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the judgment and award of the Reference Court should be modified and the compensation should be enhanced in line with the decisions of this Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the appellants has placed reliance on the following judgments: a. B. NAGOJI RAO Vs. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND ANR,  Civil Appeal No.9361/2017 dt. 20.07.2017 b. SRI BASAPPA Vs. SLAO AND ANOTHER, MFA No.1556/2010 dt. 07.07.2011 c. SRI D.G. PARAMESHWARAPPAJANGLI Vs. SLAO AND ANOTHER, MFA No.7480/2012 dt. 29.01.2014 d. SRI VEERAPPA B Vs. SLAO AND ANOTHER, MFA No.6847/2012 dt. 29.01.2024 e. SRI K. BASAPPA Vs. SLAO AND ANOTHER, MSA No.91/2013 dt. 25.06.2014 f. ALIMOHAMMAD BEIGH AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR, (2017) 4 SCC 717 g. SRI VITHAL RAO AND ANOTHER Vs. SLAO, (2017) 8 SCC 558 h. UNION OF INDIA Vs. BAL RAM AND ANOTHER, AIR 2004 SC 3981 i. K. PERIASAMI Vs. SUB-TAHSILDAR, (1994) 4 SCC 180 j. RAJA RATI RAM Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB , ( 1987 Supp.) SCC 19 k. SRI G.C. SHARANAPPA Vs. SLAO AND ANOTHER , MFA No.3364/2012 dt. 13.01.2020 l. SRI NINGOJI RAO AND OTHERS Vs. SLAO AND ANOTHER , MFA No.7123/2014 dt. 13.01.2020 m. SRI ESHWARAPPA AND OTHERS Vs. SLAO AND ANOTHER , MFA No.8200/2015 dt. 13.01.2020 5. Per contra, Sri.B.R.Prashanth, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and Smt.Mamatha Shetty, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1 supported the impugned judgment and award of the Reference Court and submitted that the determination of the market value by the Reference Court is just and does not warrant any enhancement. It is submitted that the award of compensation at Rs.105/- per sq. ft. It is submitted that the award of compensation at Rs.105/- per sq. ft. pertains to lands situated within the town limits having non- agricultural potential whereas the acquired lands in the present appeal are purely agricultural in nature where sugarcane crop was being cultivated. Hence, such comparison is inapplicable. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 further submitted that the lands in this appeal and that of M.F.A. No.393/2015 decided by the co- ordinate Bench of this Court are identical, pertaining to the same village, acquired under the same notification and for the same purpose. Accordingly, they prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 6. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent No.1, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and meticulously perused the material available on record. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions advanced on both sides. 7. The point that would arise for consideration in this appeal is: "Whether the impugned judgment and award passed by the Reference Court calls for any interference?" 8. The records indicate that the claimant’s lands measuring 1 acre 28 guntas in Survey No.43/P4 and 15.5 guntas in Survey No.35/P2 of Kodachagondanahalli Village, Kasba Hobli, Honnalli Taluk, were acquired for the Upper Tunga Project. The preliminary notification was issued on 05.06.2003 followed by the final notification dated 27.01.2004. The Special Land Acquisition Officer passed an award on 30.05.2005, fixing the market value of the land at Rs.29,333/- per acre. The Reference Court enhanced the market value of the acquired lands at Rs.1,04,500/- per acre with all other statutory benefits. 9. The primary grievance of the claimant is that the Reference Court, while determining the market value of the acquired lands, has erred in treating the same as kushki (dry) land, despite clear and cogent evidence showing that the lands were irrigated and fertile with crops such as sugarcane, arecanut and tamarind being cultivated. The claimant contended that this erroneous classification has resulted in an unduly low fixation of the market value at Rs.1,04,500/- per acre. The respondents, however, argued that the Reference Court has rightly determined the value since the lands were primarily agricultural and situated away from the town limits. The claimant contended that this erroneous classification has resulted in an unduly low fixation of the market value at Rs.1,04,500/- per acre. The respondents, however, argued that the Reference Court has rightly determined the value since the lands were primarily agricultural and situated away from the town limits. They contended that the rates adopted in earlier cases of nearby town lands having non-agricultural potential cannot be made applicable to the lands under acquisition in the present case. 10. On careful consideration of the records and the rival submissions, this Court finds that the Reference Court failed to properly appreciate the nature and potential of the acquired lands. The documentary evidence and the oral testimony of PWs-1 and 2 clearly establish the existence of bore wells and irrigation facilities in the lands. The evidence further discloses that sugarcane was grown therein which are typically irrigated crops requiring sustainable water supply. The very nature of cultivation thus contradicts the finding of the Reference Court that the lands were kushki in nature. The classification of the lands plays a significant role in determining its market value. Irrigated lands, by reason of higher productivity and cropping potential, naturally command a higher value compared to dry lands. Therefore, once it is established that the acquired lands were irrigated, the market value determined on the assumption that they were dry, cannot be sustained. 11. The learned counsel for the appellants relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B.NAGOJI RAO, referred supra and contend that the quality of the land and the crop grown is required to be considered. Further, he placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of SRI.BASAPPA, referred supra and contend that the appellants are entitled to Rs.10,08,000/- per acre. It is to be noticed that in the said judgment, Rs.2,65,500/- was considered for the lands where the sugarcane crop was grown and Rs.10,08,000/- to the areca nut crops grown in the said lands. In the instant case, the records indicate that the sugarcane crop is grown. He further relies on the decision of SRI.K.BASAPPA, referred supra and contend that this Court, while considering the miscellaneous second appeal has awarded Rs.12,00,000/- per acre. Again, it is to be noticed that the land covered in the said appeal was where the areca nut garden was existing and based on capitalisation method, the compensation was awarded. He further relies on the decision of SRI.K.BASAPPA, referred supra and contend that this Court, while considering the miscellaneous second appeal has awarded Rs.12,00,000/- per acre. Again, it is to be noticed that the land covered in the said appeal was where the areca nut garden was existing and based on capitalisation method, the compensation was awarded. The decisions in the case of SRI.G.C.SHARANAPPA and in the case of SRI.NINGOJI RAO AND OTHERS, referred supra of the co-ordinate Bench also have no application to the facts of the case. In the said case, the compensation was awarded at Rs.105/- per sq. ft. taking into account the fact that the subject matter of the lands were within the city limits. 12. The next question is the determination of the correct market value. It is true that the claimant has not produced any independent sale transaction or reliable documentary evidence indicating the prevailing market rate as on the date of the preliminary notification, i.e., 05.06.2003. However, the absence of such direct evidence is not fatal when there exists judicial precedent pertaining to similar lands acquired under the same notification and for the same purpose. When such comparable instances are available through earlier judicial pronouncements, the Court can rely upon them for maintaining uniformity and avoiding disparity in the compensation between similarly situated landowners. 13. In the present case, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in SMT.RATHNAMMA Vs. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND OTHERS , MFA No.333/2015 dt. 17.04.2021 , while considering the lands acquired under the same notification and for the same Upper Tunga Project, has determined the market value at Rs. 2,62,500/- per acre for irrigated lands. The lands involved in that case and the present appeal are situated in the same village and are similar in fertility, irrigation, and agricultural potential. The principle of parity mandates that the similarly placed claimants whose lands are acquired under the same notification for the same purpose should receive uniform compensation, unless substantial distinguishing features are shown. No such distinguishing factor is demonstrated by the respondents in the present case. 14. In view of the above discussion, this Court holds that the Reference Court erred in treating the lands as kushki and in awarding inadequate compensation. The lands being irrigated and fertile, and in light of the co- ordinate Bench’s decision in SMT. No such distinguishing factor is demonstrated by the respondents in the present case. 14. In view of the above discussion, this Court holds that the Reference Court erred in treating the lands as kushki and in awarding inadequate compensation. The lands being irrigated and fertile, and in light of the co- ordinate Bench’s decision in SMT. RATHNAMMA , referred supra , the fair and reasonable market value is to be re- fixed at Rs. 2,62,500/- per acre. The appellants are accordingly entitled to the enhanced compensation along with all statutory benefits and interest as per law. 15. For the preceding analysis, the appeal is allowed-in-part with costs. The appellants are entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.2,62,500/- per acre along with all statutory benefits and interest as per law. However, the appellants are not entitled for interest for the delayed period.