R. M. S. KHANDEPARKAR, J.

( 1 ) SINCE both the appeals arise out of the common judgment and award passed by the reference Court, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

( 2 ) THE First Appeal No. 870 of 1991 has been filed by the State of maharashtra whereas the First Appeal No. 817 of 1991 has been filed by the claimants.

( 3 ) THE claimants land bearing Survey Nos. 40, 44/1, 39/1, 37/4c, 7/2/7/a, 37/1/a, 36/8, 37/40/68/8, 37/18 and 36/7 situated in village Taloja, Taluka panvel, District of Thane, were sought to be acquired by a notification issued under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, hereinafter called as "the said act", and published in Government Gazette on 4th February, 1970. The award in exercise of powers under section 11 of the said Act was declared on 6th december 1985 thereby awarding compensation for the land of the claimants at the rate of Rs. 3/- and Rs. 4/- per sq. metre. Being dissatisfied, the claimants preferred reference application under section 18 of the said Act claiming Rs. 15/- p. s. m. which was thereafter by way of amendment enhanced to Rs. 25/- and further to Rs. 30/- p. s. m. The reference court after recording the evidence which comprised of testimony of the claimants and their valuer, awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 15/- p. s. m. Being dissatisfied with the said award, the State of maharashtra has filed the First Appeal No. 870 of 1991 whereas the claimants have filed the First Appeal No. 817 of 1991 claiming compensation at the rate of rs. 40/- p. s. m.

( 4 ) THE learned advocate appearing on behalf of the State of Maharashtra, while assailing the impugned award submitted that the reference Court erred in enhancing compensation at the rate of Rs. 15/- p. s. m. solely on the basis of the testimony of the claimants and the valuer ignoring the fact that the said testimony nowhere assists the claimants to justify enhancement of the compensation. She further submitted that the reference court failed to take note of the fact that the testimony of the valuer was on the basis of his inspection carried out nearly 19 years after the publication of the notification under section 4 and that the sale instances, which were sought to be relied upon by the valuer, were in relation to strips of land or pieces of land situated in the neighbourhood of the residents of the houses. The reference Court did not consider the issue regarding deductions to be made in case the land is to be considered as potential and suitable for construction activities. The valuation in relation to a large piece of land cannot be on the metre basis but it is to be on the hectare basis. In the absence of cogent evidence being produced on record by the claimants, the reference Court erred in granting enhancement to the extent of Rs. 15/- p. s. m. She relied upon the decisions in the matter of Viluben Jhalejar Contractor (Dead) by LRs. vs. State of gujarat, reported in (2005)4 SCC 789, P. Rajan and another vs. Kerala State electricity Board and another, reported in (1997) 9 SCC 330, Kasturi and ors. vs. State of Haryana, reported in (2003)1 SCC 354, Administrator General of west Bengal vs. Collector, Varanasi, reported in AIR 1988 SC 943, Ratan Lal gupta and ors. vs. Union of India, reported in (1996)7 SCC 3 and in the matter of special Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore vs. V. T. Velu and ors. , reported in (1996) 2 SCC 538.

( 5 ) ON the other hand, the learned Advocate for the claimants while assailing the impugned award submitted that the reference Court erred in taking note of the fact that the evidence produced on record clearly justified the enhancement of compensation for more than Rs. 30/- p. s. m. He further submitted that the testimony of the valuer in support of the claim of the claimants for enhancement of compensation has gone unchallenged and it clearly established the justification for enhancement of compensation at least to the tune of Rs. 40/- p. s. m. This C