JUDGMENT :

ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.

1. This is an appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, assailing the judgment of the Reference Court, Darwha dated 25.01.2012 in Land Acquisition Case No. 1425 of 2014. By the impugned judgment, the Reference Court has partly allowed the Reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the said Act’) and enhanced the compensation from Rs. 10,500/- per hectare to Rs. 50,000/- per hectare in respect of the land under Survey No. 19/2 admeasuring 6H 7R of village Mokh, Tq. Digras, District Yavatmal.

2. The brief facts leading to this appeal are as under:

The appellants were the owners of the land under Survey No. 19/2 of village Mokh, Tq. Digras, District Yavatmal. The said land admeasuring 6H 7R was acquired by the Acquiring Body (Respondent No. 4) for the purpose of submergence of Arunavati Project. The Notification under Section 4 was published on 23.01.1986 and the Award was declared on 03.08.1988. The Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) determined the compensation at Rs. 10,500/- per hectare. Not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation determined by the LAO, the appellants filed a Reference under Section 18 of the said Act.

3. The Reference Court relied upon the judgment in LAC No. 287 of 2004 and LAC 122 of 2004 (Exh.37) wherein the compensation in respect of an irrigated land in the same vicinity, acquired by the same notification was enhanced to Rs. 1,00,000/- per hectare. The Reference Court held that there was no evidence to prove that the acquired land was irrigated land and hence upon deducting 50% towards this dissimilarity, awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 50,000/- per hectare. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellants have filed this appeal under Section 54 of the said Act.

4. Shri A.R. Chavhan, learned Advocate for the appellants has relied upon judgment dated 20.02.2019 in First Appeal No. 426 of 1996 (Dattaram S/o Tatyaji Paul vs. State of Maharashtra and Others), wherein this Court (Coram: Arun D. Upadhye, J.) had enhanced the compensation in respect of the land under Survey No. 93/4 of village Mokh from Rs. 90,000/- per hectare to Rs. 6,50,000/- per hectare. The enhancement was based on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 5146-5147 of 2011. Learned Advocate for the appellants submits that the land under Survey No. 93/4 is of similar nature and is in close vicinity of the subject land. He further submits that the said land under Survey No. 93/4 was acquired for the same purpose by the same Notification. He therefore contends that in view of the said judgment dated 20.02.2019 in First Appeal No. 426 of 1996 and the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 5146-5147 of 2011, the appellants are also entitled for compensation at Rs. 6,50,000/- per hectare.

5. Shri M.A. Kadu, learned Advocate for respondent no. 4 has brought to my notice that by judgment dated 17.09.2010 in First Appeal No. 87 of 1996, this Court had determined the compensation in respect of Survey No. 93/4 at Rs. 70,000/- per hectare. He submits that the appellants in First Appeal No. 426 of 1996 got the compensation enhanced by suppressing the fact that the compensation in respect of the very same land was determined at Rs. 70,000/- per hectare vide judgment dated 17.09.2010 passed in First Appeal No. 87 of 1996. He therefore contends that no reliance can be placed on the judgment dated 20.02.2019 in First Appeal No. 426 of 1996 in determining the market rate of the subject land.

6. Shri Kadu, learned counsel for the Acquiring Body further submits that the land which was subject matter of the appeal in Civil Appeal Nos. 5146-5147 of 2011, before the Hon’ble Supreme Court was acquired for establishment of new gaothan of Mokh Village. He submits that the said land under Survey No. 126/1-B was close to the road and had NA potential. He further submits that the nature of the subject land is not similar to the land, which was