SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J.:- By a common judgment and award dated 23rd December, 2005, the learned 2nd Ad-hoc Additional District Judge, Nashik, disposed of 21 land references made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, hereinafter referred to as "the Act" by the Special Land Acquisition Officer (S.L.A.O.). Aggrieved from the enhancement granted by the Court, the State Government has filed the above 21 Appeals. The claimants, upon service, filed 20 cross-objections in those appeals. As all these appeals and cross objections are directed against the same judgment, it would be appropriate to dispose of all these matters by a common judgment.

2. We may notice necessary facts at the very outset. The SLAO issued a notification under Section 4 of the Act on 17th February, 1994 intending to acquire lands from the revenue estate of village Sanjegaon, Tal, Igatpuri, District Nashik, for a public purpose viz. Mukane Dam Project. In furtherance to the above notification, a declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 16th June, 1994, acquiring nearly 265 hectares and 54 ares of land from this revenue estate. The SLAO, after following the prescribed procedure, made and published the Award dated 14th December, 1995 vide which he segregated the land into different categories and depending upon the location and nature of the land awarded compensation at varying rates from a minimum being Rs.40,000/- per hectare to Rs.1,10,000/per hectare.

3. The claimants being dissatisfied from the compensation awarded to them by the Collector filed applications for enhancement of the compensation. These references filed under Section 18 of the Act on 22nd April, 1996 were forwarded to the Court of competent jurisdiction for determination of compensation payable to the claimants in terms of Section 23 of the Act. Parties led evidence, documentary and oral. After taking into consideration the evidence led by the parties, as already noticed, vide awardcum-judgment dated 23rd December, 2005, the Reference Court enhanced the compensation payable to the claimants to Rs.2,16,924/- per hectare for bagayat, Rs.l,73,539/- per hectare for jirayat andRs.86,770/- per hectare for pot kharaba lands. This compensation was determined by the learned Reference Court with reference to Exhibits-29, 33 and 42, crop statements used for proving that the land was bagayat land, Exhibits-74, 76 and 84, sale instances or agreement to sell of the lands from the revenue estate of village Sanjegaon. Before the Reference Court, the State primarily relied upon Exhibits-48 and 49 which were the judgments of the Court in different Land References including LR No.588/97 wherein the Court had granted compensation at the rate of Rs.40,000/- per hectare in the same village. Possession of the land was taken on 1st July, 1994 vide Exhibit-66. It is apparent and not in dispute before us that urgency clause was not invoked by the competent authority in relation to taking over of possession.

4. According to the claimants, with reference to the sale instances proved by them on record, they were entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.4,00,000/- per hectare and thus they filed the cross-objections for further enhancement of the compensation granted by the Reference Court in the present appeals. According to the learned counsel appearing for the State, the compensation awarded to the claimants is excessive, unreasonable and the award of the SLAO is liable to be restored.

5. At the very outset, the learned counsel appearing for the parties commonly stated that all the evidence led in the present case was also led by the parties before the learned Reference Court in Land Reference No.191/99. Against that judgment, an appeal was filed by the State being First Appeal No.1171 of 2007 (State of Maharashtra Vs. Smt. Fulyabai Kisan Govardhane and others). In that case also, the lands were acquired from the revenue estate of village Sanjegaon and for the same purpose viz. Mukane Dam. The