C. V. JANI, J. N. BHATT, J. ( 1 ) THE challenge in this appeal is against the judgment and award passed by the learned Extra Assistant Judge Baroda in Land Reference Case No. 5 of 1976 by invoking the aid of Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (the Act for short hereinafter ). The facts giving rise to the present appeal may be shortly narrated at this stage so as to appreciate the merits of the appeal and the cross-objections. The respondents land bearing Survey No. 151 situated in village Makarpura was acquired by virtue of a notification u/s. 4 of the Act dated 2-1-1969 which is hereinafter referred to as the land in question for brevity. The notification for acquiring the land was issued on 2 under Section 4 of the Act and notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 16 The respondents are the original claimants and the appellant is the original opponent and they are also hereinafter referred to as the claimants and opponent for the sake of convenience. ( 2 ) THE Land Acquisition Officer was pleased to pass an award dated 29-7-1975 in respect of the land in question bearing S. No. 151 which is admeasuring H 1 Gs. 21 sq. mts. 41 approximately 12 0 sq. mts (approximately 1 30 685 sq. ft.) The award was passed on the assessment of market value at the rate of Re. 0. 50 Ps. The claimants had objected to it and Reference under Section 18 of the Act was made. The claimants raised various grounds challenging the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer. The claimants contended that the market value of the land in question should be assessed at the rate of Re. 1. 50 Ps. per sq. ft. and also solatium interest and cost should be awarded. The opponent-State appeared and resisted the claim made by the claimants. On appreciation of the evidence the learned Extra Assistant Judge Vadodara was pleased to hold that the claimants are entitled to compensation at the rate of the Re. 0. 15 Ps. per sq. ft. against the claim of Re. 1. 50 Ps. per sq. ft. Over and above solatium at the rate of 15 per cent interest at the rate of 4 per cent per annum from the date of taking over possession and cost was also awarded. 0. 15 Ps. per sq. ft. against the claim of Re. 1. 50 Ps. per sq. ft. Over and above solatium at the rate of 15 per cent interest at the rate of 4 per cent per annum from the date of taking over possession and cost was also awarded. The Land Acquisition Officer had awarded Rs. 24 889. 05 and solatium of 15 thereof. Thus the learned Trial Court Judge awarded an additional compensation of Rs. 1 44 208. 4 Ps. The impugned award came to be passed on 12-10-1979. Being aggrieved by the said award the original opponent has now come up before this Court challenging the legality and validity of the same by filing this appeal. The original claimants have also challenged the award and have prayed for enhancement of compensation by filing cross-objections. ( 3 ) THE additional amount of compensation awarded by the Trial Court is seriously challenged in this appeal on behalf of the original opponent-appellant. The claimants by filing cross-objections have contended that the compensation should be awarded at the rate of Re. 1. 5 Ps. per sq. ft. instead of Re. 1. 15 Ps. per sq. ft. as awarded by the Trial Court. In Order to appreciate the merits of this rival versions it would be necessary to refer to the relevant material on record. ( 4 ) THE Trial Court has placed reliance on the judgment and award passed by it in respect of land bearing S. Nos. 308 and 311 situated in the same village Makarpura wherein S. No. 151 is situated The said judgment and award passed by the District Court at Baroda is produced at Ex. 63. The Court was pleased to award compensation at the rate of Re 1. 25 Ps. in respect of acquisition of land bearing S. Nos. 308 and 311. The land in dispute (S. No. 151) and S. Nos. 308 and 311 were acquired by common notification dated 2-1-1969. They are situated in the same village Makarpura as stated earlier. The Trial Court reached the conclusion that the land bearing S. Nos. 308 and 311 are situated near National Highway No. 8 and the land in question is situated little farther from the National Highway. Considering this aspect the learned trial Judge awarded Re. 1. 15 Ps. per sq. ft. whereas the compensation was awarded at the rate of Re. 1. 25 Ps. 308 and 311 are situated near National Highway No. 8 and the land in question is situated little farther from the National Highway. Considering this aspect the learned trial Judge awarded Re. 1. 15 Ps. per sq. ft. whereas the compensation was awarded at the rate of Re. 1. 25 Ps. per sq. ft. in the judgment and award Ex. 63 in respect of Survey Nos. 308 and 311. So what has weighted with the Trial Court is the proximity of acquired land under award at Ex. 63 with the National Highway. While evaluating the price of land the assessment made in respect of land bearing S. Nos. 308 and 311 the Trial Court had considered various aspects and the price of the land was fixed at Re. 1. 25 Ps. per sq. ft. for the land under acquisition in Land Reference Case Nos. 16 and 17 of 1976. ( 5 ) THE learned In-charge Government Pleader Mr. D. K. Trivedi has vehemently criticised the approval of the Trial Court in basing the award on the assessment and evaluation of land bearing S. Nos. 308 and 311 in the Land Reference Cases as aforesaid. In that he contended that the Trial Court has erred in placing reliance on award at Ex. 63 in preference to the transaction in respect of the same land in question. It is his contention that the claimants had purchased the land in question on 6-3-1963 only for Rs. 13 590. 00- and it ought to have been accepted as a safe guide. This contention may prima facie appear to be captivated but not sustainable in view of the peculiar facts of the case. The learned Trial Judge has rightly not based the evaluation on the price of land on sale transaction dated 6 The reasons for not accepting the basis of the said sale deed produced at Ex. 58 are quite comprehensive and unequivocal and in our opinion the Trial Court has rightly accepted the basis of the value and assessment of the land fixed in award produced at Ex. 63. Ordinarily we would accept the evaluation made in the sale deed in respect of the same parcel of land or property in question. The purchase by the claimants was made in the year 1963. 63. Ordinarily we would accept the evaluation made in the sale deed in respect of the same parcel of land or property in question. The purchase by the claimants was made in the year 1963. The acquisition proceedings started in 1969 Apart from the gap of six years in between which is seriously considered by the Trial Court there is a change in the character of the land in question. It is an admitted fact that the land in question when it was purchased on 6 was agricultural land. Thereafter in course of time the claimants have converted it into non-agricultural land. The Trial Court has considered the map Ex. 27. It is a map of Makarpura village where land bearing S. No. 151 and land bearing S. Nos. 308 and 311 are situated. Ex. 28 is a sketch map. Ex. 32 is an order of the District Development Officer granting permission for non-agricultural purpose in respect of the land in question as early as on 9-6-1964. Thereafter the claimants desired to develop the land and therefore there was a proposal for a scheme for development and proposed lay out plan was submitted which was approved. Permission of the competent authority was obtained on 16 and the same is produced at Ex. 34. The claimants also applied for construction as detailed in the proposed lay out plan at Ex. 33 and the permission was granted by the competent authority of the Municipal Corporation of Baroda on 11-5-1967 which is produced at Ex. 59. It is obvious from the aforesaid documentary evidence that the character and the nature of land which it was in 1963 when it was purchased by the claimants was substantially changed during the period ending 1969. No doubt considering the value of the land in question in a sale deed in respect of same land is one of the good methods and guides for determining and evaluating the price of the acquired land. There are several recognised modes for basing the award for arriving at a fair and just amount of compensation. The main anxiety of the authority or court should be to ascertain and find out the fair and just amount of value of the land under acquisition. There are several recognised modes for basing the award for arriving at a fair and just amount of compensation. The main anxiety of the authority or court should be to ascertain and find out the fair and just amount of value of the land under acquisition. The mandate of Section 23 of the Act is to see that the affected person in an acquisition proceeding is placed in the same position as far as possible as he would have been had there been no acquisition. So the ultimate purpose and policy enshrined in Section 23 of the Act is to see that the affected person or owner of the property acquired should get fair just amount of compensation. The Trial Court has adopted a method for determining the value of the land on the basis of judgment and award produced at Ex. 63. In our opinion the approach of the Trial Court in adopting and accepting the method relying on Ex. 63 is quite correct in the facts of the present case. If the land involved in the awards is comparable land in the reasonable proximity of the acquired land the rates found in those awards would be a relevant material to afford a basis to work upon for determination of compensation even by a later date whereas in the present case the land in dispute bearing S. No. 151 and the lands under award Ex. 63 bearing S. Nos. 308 and 311 came to be acquired under the same notification dated 2 This assumes very high significance. Therefore the serious contention raised on behalf of the appellant/original opponant by Mr. Trivedi learned In-charge Government Pleader that at the best the Trial Court could not have awarded more than Re. 1/- per sq. ft. is in our opinion totally meritless. The Trial Court has rightly appreciated the document at Ex. 63 which is an award then the sale deed at Ex. 58. In the result the serious contention raised on behalf of the appellant that the award under challenge in this appeal is highly excessive cannot be sustained for a moment. ( 6 ) THERE is another circumstance which runs counter to the submission raised on behalf of the appellant. It is on record in evidence that sale deed dated 12 in respect of S. No. 265 situated in village Maneja which is produced at Ex. ( 6 ) THERE is another circumstance which runs counter to the submission raised on behalf of the appellant. It is on record in evidence that sale deed dated 12 in respect of S. No. 265 situated in village Maneja which is produced at Ex. 55 which also goes to show that the value of the land was assessed at Re. 1. 20 Ps. It is not in dispute that S. No. 265 purchased under the sale deed at Ex. 55 on 12-5-1967 is in village Maneja and beyond the Baroda Municipal Corporation Limit whereas the land in question is situated within the municipal corporation limit and there is no controversy about it. Could it be said even for a moment that a land situated farther beyond the municipal corporation limit fetching Re. 1. 20 Ps. per sq. ft. is not comparable with the land situated within the municipal corporation area and for which the Trial Court has assessed the value only at the rate of Re. 1. 15 Ps. per sq. ft. It is therefore very evident from Ex. 55 that the potentiality of land even outside the city limits is such that it fetched (as early as in 1967) Re. 1. 20 Ps. per sq. ft. whereas the land in question bearing S. No. 151 is assessed only at Re. 1. 15 Ps. per sq. ft. which is admittedly within the municipal corporation limit. This aspect also dynamites the serious submission raised on behalf of the appellant. With the result we are unable to uphold the contention that the estimation or evaluation made by the Trial Court is in any way excessive. Therefore this contention raised on behalf of the appellant must fail. ( 7 ) BUT that is not all. This will take us to the consideration of merits of the cross-objections filed by the claimants. ( 8 ) THE claimants claimed compensation for the acquired land at the rate of Re. 1. 50 Ps. per sq. ft. before the Land Acquisition Officer. But the Land Acquisition Officer awarded only 0. 50 Ps. per sq. ft. On reference being made the Trial Court awarded Re. 1. 15 Ps. per sq. ft. At the time of marathon submissions before this Court learned Counsel for the claimants seriously contended that at the best the Trial Court should have awarded compensation at the rate of Re. 1. 35 Ps. 50 Ps. per sq. ft. On reference being made the Trial Court awarded Re. 1. 15 Ps. per sq. ft. At the time of marathon submissions before this Court learned Counsel for the claimants seriously contended that at the best the Trial Court should have awarded compensation at the rate of Re. 1. 35 Ps. per sq. ft. Of course this submission is seriously opposed. Reliance is placed on the evidence of the claimant at Ex. 22. It is seriously inter alia contended that the land in question is situated in a thickly populated and it has a high potential building site. It is further contended that it is near the National High Way. The court has awarded Re. 1. 25 Ps. per sq. ft. in respect of S. Nos. 308 and 311 situated in the same area i. e. in Makarpura. It is therefore argued that the land in question would fetch more amount than Re. 1. 25 Ps. per sq. ft. Having given anxious thought to the facts and circumstances of the present case we are of the opinion that the learned Trial Judge has erred in not awarding Re. 1. 25 Ps. per sq. ft. in the light of the award Ex. 63. The reason enumerated in the impugned award of the Trial Court for reducing the amount of 0. 10 Ps. per sq. ft. does not find support from the evidence on record. The reason advanced is that the lands under the award Ex. 63 are nearer to the National Highway. Only on this count amount of 0. 1 Ps. per sq. ft. is reduced while evaluating the price of the land in question. In out opinion with respect to the learned Trial Court Judge this consideration is erroneous. There is no supporting evidence on record to show the nearness of the land bearing S. Nos. 308 and 311 to the National Highway. On the contrary a plain perusal of Ex. 27 which is a revenue map of Makarpura area does not even remotely indicate that the said lands are nearer to the National Highway than the land in question. On a pointed query with regard to the proximity of national highway none could point out the distance between the national highway and the disputed land or the land under award Ex. 63. On a pointed query with regard to the proximity of national highway none could point out the distance between the national highway and the disputed land or the land under award Ex. 63. However the learned In-charge Government Pleader placed reliance on the observations made in Ex. 63 and contended that the court had observed that the lands under the award Ex. 63 are situated on the National Highway. Such a contention ordinarily should be sustained. However the revenue map of village Makarpura produced at Ex. 27 and the sketch map produced at Ex. 28 unfortunately do not lend any support to the serious contention raised on behalf of the appellant. We are unable therefore to accept the proposition that the lands under award Ex. 63 are situated near the National Highway No. 8. As against that the learned Counsel for the claimants Mr. Patel seriously contended placing reliance on the evidence of the claimant Chhotubhai Patel Ex. 22 that the disputed land is adjoining the National Highway. He has drawn out attention to the evidence of the said witness and contended that the land bearing S. No. 151 is also situated in a developed and thickly populated area. Reading as a whole the evidence of witness Chhotubhai Patel it cannot be contended that the land in question is adjacent or touching the National Highway No. 8. Unfortunately the evidence with regard to proximity of the National Highway is clouded and stretchy with the result we are unable to accept either of the rival contentions that the said lands are in proximity with of National Highway No. 8. The evidence of the expert Ex. 52 also does not clearly indicate the situation of the National Highway in so far as the lands bearing S. Nos. 151 308 and 311 are concerned. Thus it would not be possible for us of conclude that the lands under the award at Ex. 63 or the land in question in this appeal are touching National Highway. In absence of any unambiguous evidence with regard to the proximity of lands with the National Highway the rival contentions that the lands are situated on the national highway cannot be subscribed to. ( 9 ) IT is also seriously contended by the learned Counsel for the claimants Mr. Patel that there was no reason as to why the Trial Court should not have awarded Re. 1. ( 9 ) IT is also seriously contended by the learned Counsel for the claimants Mr. Patel that there was no reason as to why the Trial Court should not have awarded Re. 1. 25 Ps. per sq. ft. which is already judicially adjudicated upon and that too in respect of the lands acquired under the common notification dated 2-1-1969. This alternative contention in our opinion appears to be quite sustainable. As observed hereinbefore the reason for reducing an amount of 0. 10 Ps. per sq. ft. with regard to the proximity of national highway is not found acceptable. Therefore in our opinion the Trial Court has erred in reducing the amount of 0. 1 Ps. per sq. ft. while making estimation and assessment in respect of the price of the land in question. Moreover the land bearing S. No. 265 which is beyond the limits of municipal corporation had fetched a price at the rate of Re. 1. 2 Ps. per sq. ft. in 1967 which is evidenced by the sale at Ex. 65. Obviously therefore the land in dispute which is within the municipal corporation limit would fetch more amount than Re. 1. 2 Ps. which was paid per sq. ft. for S. No. 265 which is situated in village Maneja near Baroda city. In addition to that it must be seriously noted that there are various common features and circumstances having material bearing in so far as the lands covering under award Ex. 63 and the land in question are concerned. We would like to articulate the same and they are the following:1 Both the lands are situated in municipal area. 2 Both the lands are non-agricultural lands. 3 No construction is made on both the lands. 4 Both the lands were acquired not only in 1969 but by virtue of a common notification. ( 10 ) THEREFORE in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and considering the value of lands under award at Ex. 63 as a basis which is comparable the Trial Court ought to have awarded at least Re. 1. 25 per sq. ft. There was no other reason why the lands which are acquired simultaneously under the common notification having almost common features and eseentialities should not form a basis for evaluating and assessing the price of the land. 63 as a basis which is comparable the Trial Court ought to have awarded at least Re. 1. 25 per sq. ft. There was no other reason why the lands which are acquired simultaneously under the common notification having almost common features and eseentialities should not form a basis for evaluating and assessing the price of the land. Therefore though we do not accept the submission of the learned Counsel for the claimants that compensation should be awarded at the rate of Re. 1. 35 Ps. per sq. ft. we agree that the Trial Court has erred in reducing the amount 0. 10 Ps. per sq. ft. while accepting the award at Ex. 63. ( 11 ) IN view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances narrated hereinabove the award under challenge is required to be upwardly revised and the claimants are required to be awarded 0. 10 Ps. per sq. ft. more than the evaluation and assessment by the Trial Court. Thus the claimants-respondents shall be entitled to round figure of an additional amount of Rs. 13 0 (Approx. 1 30 685 X 10 Ps. ). They shall also be entitled to solatium of Rs. 1950. 00 and they shall also be entitled to interest at the rate of 41/2 per cent per annum from the date of taking over possession i. e. 17-9-1974 till the payment is made with proportionate costs. ( 12 ) CONSEQUENTLY the appeal is dismissed and cross-objections are partly allowed with proportionate costs thereon. Decree shall be drawn accordingly. Therefore the award under appeal shall stand modified accordingly. (ISS) Orders accordingly. .