1. The point of controversy in all these appeals are centered on the question of valuation of the lands under acquisition. The appellants-original claimants cast allegations about inappropriate and improper assessment of market value of their acquired land. Therefore, all these allied appeals are dealt with together for its adjudication on merit by this common judgment.

2. The lands in question located within the vicinity of village Vaiju Babhalgaon Ta. Pathardi, District Ahmednagar were put under acquisition for construction of village percolation tank, pursuant to notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “Act of 1894”) published on 26-12-1988. The Special Land Acquisition Officer (for short “SLAO”) carried out the enquiry and determined the market value of acquired land at the rate of Rs.13,000/-per hectare. The award under section 11 of the Act of 1894 came to be made by SLAO Ahmednagar. The appellants-claimants did not satisfy with amount of compensation offered by the SLAO. Therefore, the appellants-claimants applied for enhancement of compensation and filed reference petitions under section 18 of the Act of 1894. The matters were referred to the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmednagar, for assessment of just and reasonable market value of the lands under acquisition. The trial Court after due hearing determined the market value @ Rs. 20,000/- per hectare for Jiryat (dry) land. However, the appellants-claimants were not in agreement with the price calculated by the Reference Court. Therefore, they rushed to this Court and preferred the appeals by resorting to legal remedy under section 54 of the Act of 1894 for redressal.

3. Mr. Chaudhari, learned counsel for appellants-claimants assailed that the impugned judgment and award of the Reference Court is erroneous, illegal and not within the purview of law. The Reference Court did not consider the evidence on record in its proper perspective and awarded megre compensation amount for the lands of appellants under acquisition. There were Wells and fruit bearing trees etc. in the acquired lands. The Reference Court did not appreciate these factual aspects and committed error in calculating the market value of the lands as Jiryat (dry) lands. The Reference Court did not enhance compensation amount for the Wells and fruit bearing trees etc. located in the acquired lands. The Reference Court ought to have determined the market value of the lands under acquisition as Bagayat - irrigated lands. The appellants-claimants made demand of compensation for fruit bearing trees, structures and Tal etc. The learned counsel Mr. Chaudhari explained the circumstances on record in detail and urged that the appeals be allowed and compensation awarded by the Reference Court be modified and enhanced appropriately.

4. The learned AGP for the respondent- State raised the objection and submits that the Reference Court considered all the aspects of the matter in proper manner. Therefore, there would not be any further enhancement of compensation in these appeals.

5. There is no doubt that the market value means the price which the purchaser is willing to pay for similar land to a willing seller. The price fetched by similar land with similar advantages and potentialities under bonafide transaction of sale at or about the time of preliminary notification under Section 4 of the Act, 1894 would be usually and indeed the best evidence of market value. There cannot be any hard and fast or rigid rule to calculate the just and reasonable price of acquired lands. Albeit, common sense would be the proper and most reliable guide for the same. It is not in dispute that the amount of compensation cannot be ascertained with mathematical accuracy. The evaluation of surrounding circumstances and some guess work is permissible while calculating the market price of the lands under acquisition. But, the market value determined should not be of such nature that there would