JUDGMENT

A. S. Chandurkar, J. - This appeal filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the said Act) takes exception to the judgment dated 07/12/2015 passed in L.A.R. No.95/2011 by the Reference Court. By thesaid judgment the Reference Court has partly enhanced the amount of compensation for the acquisition of the appellant's land to Rs. 18,00,000/-per hectare with other statutory benefits. The appellant not being satisfied with the quantum of enhancement has preferred the present appeal.

2. The facts relevant for adjudicating the present appeal are that the appellant is owner of field Survey No.33/2 admeasuring 3H 90R. The said land is situated at mouza Telhara, District Nagpur. The notification under Section 4 of the said Act was issued on 08/06/2007 and the said land was proposed to be acquired for development of MIHAN project. The Land Acquisition Officer passed his award on 28/06/2010 and granted compensation for the acquired land at the rate of Rs.6,00,000/- per hectare. While granting this compensation the land was treated as seasonally irrigated land. The appellant not being satisfied with the compensation as awarded preferred a reference under Section 18 of the said Act. The Reference Court after considering the evidence on record proceeded to enhance the amount of compensation to Rs. 18,00,000/- per hectare. This judgment is the subject matter of challenge in the present appeal.

3. Shri U. P. Dable, learned counsel for the appellant in support of the prayer for enhancement in the amount of compensation submits that the appellant had brought on record substantial evidence to indicate that the amount of compensation awarded by the Reference Court was less. Various sale instances of land from nearby villages were placed on record which indicated that the area in question had great commercial potentiality and it was for this purpose that the lands came to be acquired. He submitted that the acquisition in question was for the MIHAN project which itself indicated that the appellant's land had great non-agricultural potentiality due to its location. He referred to the sale instances at Exhibits-24 to 27 in that regard and submitted that the appellant was justified in seeking enhancement to the extent of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- per hectare. Referring to the maps at Exhibits-22 and 23 it was submitted that the same indicated the location of various adjoining villages as compared to village Telhara. This indicated that the acquired land had much value than that awarded by the Reference Court. Referring to the 7/12 extract at Exhibit-21 it was submitted that in the acquired land there was a well and therefore that land had to be treated as irrigated land and not perennial irrigated land. The Reference Court committed an error in not considering the evidence on record in the proper perspective thereby resulting in grant of lesser compensation to the appellant. Moreover the Land Acquisition Officer as well as the Reference Court failed to assign any reason for not granting compensation for the well. Placing reliance on the decisions in Special Land Acquisition Officer and anr. vs. M. K. Rafiq Saheb (2011) 7 SCC 714, Land Acquisition Officer Revenue Divisional Officer, Chittor vs. L. Kamalamma (Smt) Dead by LRs and ors. K. Krishnamachariand ors. (1998) 2 SCC 385 and State of Maharashtra vs. Bhaskar Namdeo Wagh and ors. 2009 (1) Mh.LJ. 299 it was submitted that on a proper appreciation of the entire material on record it was clear that the appellant was entitled for higher compensation as claimed in the reference proceedings.

4. On the other hand Shri S. Y. Deopujari, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1-acquiring body submitted that though the Reference Court partly enhanced the amount of compensation from the one granted by the Reference Court, the acquiring body had accepted the said judgment though the increase in compensation as granted was not justified. In support of the impugned judgment he sub