1. This First Appeal was finally heard on 20.03.2012 and it was reserved for pronouncement of judgment. The judgment was to be pronounced on 02.04.2012. However, in view of new roster, the date of pronouncement of the judgment is preponed for today.

2. The First Appeal takes exception to the judgment and award dated 12.08.1998 passed by the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Gangakhed, in L.A.R. No. 22 of 1997 (L.A.R. No. 18 of 94 Old).

3. The respondent herein, who is original applicant, is owner and possessor of land Gat No. 55 admeasuring 7 H 26 R of village Daku Pimpri, Tal. Pathri. The appellant/State acquired a portion of 3 H 67 R land out of Gat No. 55 for the purpose of rehabilitation of the village. The Tahsildar Pathri took over the possession of the land on 18.07.1991 with the consent of the applicant. Thereafter, notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was published in the official gazette on 12.09.1991. Said notification was served to the applicant on 04.02.1992. There was urgency in the matter and the land was taken for rehabilitation. Therefore, the possession of the land was taken over by effecting panchanama, prior to publication of the notification under section 4 of the said Act. After taking over possession of the acquired land by the non-applicant i.e. appellant herein, the land was developed into plots and the plots were distributed to the villagers and they started residing on the said plots.

4. It is case of the respondent herein that there was Neem tree standing in the land. Said tree was aged about 10 years. However, the State authorities did not record the existence of said tree in the panchanama, nor compensation amount was awarded for the said tree.

5. The Land Acquisition Officer made advance payment of Rs. 1,56,000/-to the applicant on 03.03.1992, which was received by him under protest. Thereafter, the applicant had received notices dated 22.03.1993 and 12.04.1993 under section 9 of the said Act. The respondent herein i.e. original claimant/applicant submitted his claim statement on 21.04.1993 claiming the compensation amount of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.2 lakh per hectare. The applicant, did file certified copies of sale-deed along with claim statement.

6. The Land Acquisition Officer passed award on 04.04.1994 granting total compensation amount of Rs. 2,85,159/-including solatium etc. Notice under section 12 (2) of the Act was served to the applicant on 04.04.1994. Original applicant had withdrawn the compensation amount under protest on 15.04.1994. It was case of the applicant that the Land Acquisition Officer did not properly calculated the market value of the acquired land. The prevailing market price in the vicinity on the date of notification under section 4 of the Act, was not less than Rs. 2 lakhs per hectare. Therefore, the applicant did claim compensation amount at the rate of Rs.2 lakhs per hectare. It appears that various sale instances were placed on record by original claimant/applicant in support of his case that the price of the land in the said vicinity is Rs.2 lakhs per hectare.

7. The appellant herein filed the written statement at Exh.10. It was contended in said written statement that the Land Acquisition Officer had taken into consideration the type, quality, situation, potentiality and geographical location of the land and then on conscious application of mind, had granted compensation, which is proper and reasonable.

8. The Reference Court framed as many as six issues for determination vide Exh.11. The first issue i.e. Does the petitioner prove that compensation awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer is inadequate? has been answered in the affirmative. The Reference Court has calculated and awarded Rs.1,50,000/- per hectare. The other issues are also addressed. Issue No. 5 i.e. Whether the claimant is entitled to solatium and interest as prayed? has been answered in the affirmative.

9. Being aggrieved by the said judgmen