J. N. BHATT, J. ( 1 ) IN this group of 10 matters the challenge is made by the appellants against composite judgment and award passed by the learned Assistant Judge Bharuch dated 1st August 1991 In 14 land acquisition cases. Four appeals were disposed of at the admission stage. For the remaining 10 appeals the matters were admitted. Upon joint request the matters were taken up for final hearing and are being disposed of by this common judgment as all the matters involve common and identical questions. ( 2 ) A few material facts leading to the rise of the present group of ten appeals may be stated at this stage. The Executive Engineer Irrigation Department Rajpipla had initiated acquisition proceedings of the lands of village Karatha of Taluka Nanded of Bharuch district for the purpose of Karjan Jalashay Yojna. The notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 came to be published in the government gazette on 22. 9 followed by the notification under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act which was published on 27. 9. 84. The notice under section 9 (3) of the Act had also been served to all the interested parties who were heard in person for the purpose of compensation. ( 3 ) THE Land Acquisition Officer awarded Rs. 275 per acre like that Rs. 2. 75 ps. per sq. mtr. by his award dated 29. 8. 86 against the claim of Rs. 15 0 per acre. The land owners were not satisfied and therefore the Land Reference Application under section 8 of the Land Acquisition Act was made to the District Court at Bharuch. The claim made by the land owners before the District Court were opposed by the appellants. In short the additional compensation demanded by the respondents came to be objected. ( 4 ) HAVING regard to the facts and circumstances and upon apprisal of the evidence on record the learned Assistant Judge Bharuch granted additional compensation of Rs. 535/- per sq. mtr. on 1st August 1991 in all the 14 references. Thus the claimants were awarded in all an amount of Rs. 810/- per sq. acre like that Rs. 8. 10 per sq. mtr. 535/- per sq. mtr. on 1st August 1991 in all the 14 references. Thus the claimants were awarded in all an amount of Rs. 810/- per sq. acre like that Rs. 8. 10 per sq. mtr. Being dissatisfied by the composite judgment and award the appellants have come before this Court challenging legality and validity by invoking the aids of the provisions of section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (For short Code ). ( 5 ) THE learned Government Pleader Trivedi has firstly submitted that maintainability of the references was not considered under the provisions of section 25 of the Land Acquisition Act. According to him such a contention is also raised in the written statement. It appears that such a submission was not made before the District Court. No issue was raised. No attempt was made to raise such an issue. Apart from that this being the First Appeal it could be considered at this stage. However section 25 of the Land Acquisition Act only prescribes that the amount of compensation by the Court should not be lower than the amount awarded by the Collector or the Land Acquisition Officer. Section 25 of the Land Acquisition Act reads as under:the amount of compensation awarded by the Court shall not be less than the amount awarded by the Collector under section 11. ( 6 ) THE contention of the appellants before the District Court that references were not maintainable under section 25 is misconceived. It does not pertain to the maintainability of such references. Therefore the first contention of the learned Government Pleader is required to be rejected. ( 7 ) THE second contention raised by the learned Government Pleader is that the evidence of the claimants is not sufficient to award Rs. 810/- per acre like that Rs. 8. 10 per sq. mtr. This submission is seriously countenanced by the learned advocate for the respondents. ( 8 ) THE District Court has fixed the market value of the acquired lands considering the evidence of the claimants produced at exhs. 16 17 and 18. Exh. 16 is an award passed in Land Reference case no. 274 of 1987. The lands are acquired for the purpose of irrigation of village Rajpipla. The District Court in that case had awarded Rs. 850/- per sq. acre. like that Rs. 8. 5 ps. per sq. mtr. 16 17 and 18. Exh. 16 is an award passed in Land Reference case no. 274 of 1987. The lands are acquired for the purpose of irrigation of village Rajpipla. The District Court in that case had awarded Rs. 850/- per sq. acre. like that Rs. 8. 5 ps. per sq. mtr. It is an admitted fact that this award at exh. 16 has become final. The notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act in that case was issued on 17. 3 ( 9 ) THE claimants also placed reliance on the award which has also become final and produced at exh. 17. It is an award made by the District Court at Bharuch in Land Reference case no. I of 1988 where the lands of village Jitgadh were acquired for the purpose of irrigation. The market value was fixed by the District Court at Rs. 8. 10 per sq. acre. means Rs. 8. 10 per sq. mtr. There is no dispute about the fact that this award has become final. There is also no dispute about the fact that the notification in that case was issued under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on 21. 1 like that 8 months prior to the date of issuance of the notification under section 4 in the present case. ( 10 ) ON behalf of the claimants common evidence is given in all the matters by the claimant Mr. Manharbhai D. Patel at exh. 18. It is proved in his evidence that village Karatha from where the impugned lands are acquired is not far from village Rajpipla and Jitgadh. It is observed in the impugned award and judgment that village Jitgadh is about 3 kms. away from village Karatha. The distance between Rajpipla and village Karatha is also about 4 kms. as per the evidence on record. It is very clear from the evidence on record that the lands of the village Jitgadh and Rajpipla are of the same quality utility and productivity as that of the lands of village Karatha. ( 11 ) CONSIDERING the oral evidence of witness claimant Manharbhai D. Patel at exh. 18 and the revenue record produced at exhs. 10 to 15 and the final awards at exhs. 16 and 17+ the District Court fixed the market value of the acquired lands at Rs. 810/- per acre. ( 11 ) CONSIDERING the oral evidence of witness claimant Manharbhai D. Patel at exh. 18 and the revenue record produced at exhs. 10 to 15 and the final awards at exhs. 16 and 17+ the District Court fixed the market value of the acquired lands at Rs. 810/- per acre. The same District Court had fixed the same market value for the acquired lands in 1986. For the lands the statutory notifications had been issued much earlier than one in question. The District Court has therefore rightly placed reliance on the evidence produced by the claimants. It may be mentioned that the appellants have not led any evidence whatsoever. Thus the evidence of the claimants relied on by the District Court has remained unrebutted and uncontroverted Therefore there was no reason for the District Court not to follow the final awards which were passed in 1986 and the notification under section 4 in respect of village of the said awards were much earlier ( 12 ) LEARNED advocate Mr. Patel for the respondents has rightly placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Madras vs. A. M. Nanjan and another 1976 Supreme Court cases 973 It cannot be contended by the Government that the sale instances of the awards should be of the same village Such a contention was repelled and it was held in the said case that the lands involved in the awards is comparable land in the reasonable proximity of the acquired land and the rates found in the said document would be a reliable material to afford a basis to work upon for the determination of compensation. ( 13 ) RELIANCE is also sought to be placed by the learned advocate Mr. ( 13 ) RELIANCE is also sought to be placed by the learned advocate Mr. Patel for the respondents on the Supreme Court decision rendered in the case of Mehta Ravindrarai Ajitrai vs. State of Gujarat reported in A. I. R 1969 SC 2051 In that case it was observed that the market value of a piece of property for purposes of section 23 is stated to be the price at which the property changes hands from a willing seller to a willing buyer but not too anxious a buyer dealing at arms length Prices fetched for similar lands with similar advantages and potentialities under bonafide transaction of sale at or about the time of the preliminary notification are the usual and indeed the best evidences of market value In the case on hand the awards are in respect of the lands of adjoining village for which notifications were issued prior to the date of notification and therefore reliance can very well be placed on exhs. 16 and 17 which are the awards and which have become final ( 14 ) THE learned advocate Mr. Patel also relied on the Division Bench of this Court rendered in the case of Special Land Acquisition Officer vs. Shantibhai 1993 GLH 542 It was a Division Bench decision of this Court wherein I was a party and speaking for the bench I had enumerated several principles for determining the market value under section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act The principles governing the fixation of the market value are highlighted in paras 15 and 16 of the said decision They are rightly relied on by the learned advocate Mr. Patel ( 15 ) SINCE four matters out of the group of 14 decided under the impugned judgment and award were not admitted at the admission stage and also upon the joint request and considering the amount involved in other 10 matters the entire group was fixed for final hearing Having regards to the facts and circumstances enumerated hereinbefore while viewing in light of the latest case law on the point this Court has no hesitation in holding that the impugned judgment and award of the District Court Bharuch cannot be said to be wrong or illegal No interference is warranted Therefore all these 10 appeals are meritless and are required to be dismissed. ( 16 ) CONSEQUENTLY all the 10 appeals are dismissed Having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances there shall be no order as to costs. Appeals Dismissed. .