JUDGMENT : C.K. Buch, J. 1. The Special Land Acquisition Officer and Executive Engineer, Mehsana have preferred these appeals on behalf of the State of Gujarat, under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act read with section 96 of CPC, challenging the common judgment and awards passed by the Reference Court under section 18 of the said Act. 2. The appellant-State has insisted for stay of execution of the impugned judgment and awards passed by the Reference Court, and at that stage on the request of learned counsel for both parties these appeals are taken up for final hearing. 3. As a result of the hearing, we do not see any need to discuss each and every detail of the facts available on record of each individual case. 4. The lands acquired in the instant cases are located in the sim of village Borisana of Taluka Kalol, the lands were acquired for the purpose of Kalol-Medaadaraj Road and the notification under section 4(1) of the said Act was published on 7.9.1989. The Land Acquisition officer, at the time of passing award under section 11 of the said Act, awarded Rs.2.31ps per square meter. The respondents-land holders had claimed compensation at the rate of Rs.50/- per square meter. The Reference Court, after adjudication of the matter, awarded the full amount, which is the subject matter in the present appeals. 5. The Reference Court had considered the price awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer at Rs.2.31 per square meter and the market value of the acquired lands was determined at the rate of Rs.50/- per square meter. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the market value determined by the Reference Court is on much higher side and the same is not based on comparable sale instances. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is focused on one of the judgments referred to by the Reference Court in its judgment, which pertains to an award passed under section 18 of the said Act, which was ultimately confirmed by this court, wherein the acquired lands are situated in the sim of village Saij and acquired for the public purpose. The said judgment is delivered in the case of Special Land Acquisition Officer v. Patel Bhagwanbhai and others, reported in 1996 (1) GLR 481 . The said judgment is delivered in the case of Special Land Acquisition Officer v. Patel Bhagwanbhai and others, reported in 1996 (1) GLR 481 . It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the Reference Court was in error in considering the judgment and awards passed in that particular land acquisition case, inasmuch as the geographical situation and potentiality of the lands situated in the sim of village Saij is not comparable. 6. The Reference Court has considered three judgments and awards, out of which two pertain to the lands acquired from the sim of village Borisana itself. As stated earlier, the third sale instance, which is considered by the Reference Court, pertains to the lands acquired from the sim of village Saij. It is not the say of the appellants that the method adopted for determination of the market value by the Reference Court is erroneous or otherwise improper and obviously it cannot be because it is settled legal position that the previous awards can be looked into for the determination of the market value in land reference cases, if found comparable. 7. We have gone through the judgment and awards passed by the Reference Court and all relevant material produced before us. On appreciation, we found that all the three sale instances, which were considered by the Reference Court for determination of the market value of the acquired lands in question, are comparable sale instances. The Reference Court has considered a judgment and awards passed in the case of one Nathaji Lalaji, which is produced at Exh.23. The land holders in that case were awarded Rs.40/- per square meter and the lands were acquired for the activities of Oil and Natural Gas Commission (ONGC for short). Certain lands located in the sim of village Borisana were also acquired for the purpose of ONGC, which is the case of one Mukundbhai Ramanlal Shah in the judgment and award, which is produced at Exh.24. In the said case the Reference Court has awarded Rs.90/- per square meter and Rs.45/- per square meter by categorising the lands. We have carefully gone through the judgment at Exh.24 and the portion explaining the necessity of two categories made by the Reference Court. In the said case the Reference Court has awarded Rs.90/- per square meter and Rs.45/- per square meter by categorising the lands. We have carefully gone through the judgment at Exh.24 and the portion explaining the necessity of two categories made by the Reference Court. Irrespective of the price awarded to the land holders in the sim of village Saij, the above said two awards are sufficient to appreciate the facts situation available in the case on hand. There is no dispute that the lands acquired for ONGC activities are situated in the sim of village Borisana, and it is a categorical finding of the Reference Court that these lands are situated just near to the lands acquired in the case on hand. The Reference Court has also considered the tracing produced before us and we have also been supplied with a sketch prepared for the purpose. Looking to the distance between Kalol and Saij on one hand and Kalol and Borisana on the other, it can be said that though the geographical distance between Saij and Kalol may be of 3 to 4 kilometers, the village Borisana is undisputedly at a distance of only half a kilometer from the developed Taluka Town of Kalol. It is a proved fact and also is not a matter of controversy that some of the lands of the village Borisana, Saij and Kalol were acquired by Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority, popularly known as AUDA. To determine the market value and to award just compensation, it is the obligatory duty of the court to take an overall perspective of the situation and location of the land. We agree that future prospects or anticipated development cannot be made a base, but the totality of the facts available on record as to the development of surrounding area cannot be ignored because it touches the ultimate potentiality of the land. 8. In the case of lands acquired for ONGC, the judgment of which is at Exh.24, the notification under section 4 was published on 6th August 1981, whereas the date of publication of notification under section 4 in the instant case is 7th September 1989, i.e. practically after a lapse of eight years. In the case of judgment at Exh.23, the date of publication of notification under section 4 is 28th July 1983. In the case of judgment at Exh.23, the date of publication of notification under section 4 is 28th July 1983. For the lands acquired in the year 1981, the minimum market value awarded to the land-holders is Rs.45/- per square meter and for the lands acquired in the year 1983, the land-holders were awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.40/- per square meter. As per settled legal position, if even 10% increase is given to the land holders whose lands are acquired under notification under section 4 published in the year 1989, obviously the figure would go beyond Rs.50/-, which is awarded under the impugned judgment and awards. 9. The lands located in the sim of village Saij were acquired under a notification published under section 4 of the said Act dated 15th February 1979. In that case the market value of the land was determined by this court, which is a reported decision in 1996(1) GLR page 481, at Rs.35/- per square meter. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that the amount awarded to the land holders of village Saij is not a comparable market value, even if for the sake of argument is accepted, the fact of the development of the area in the near vicinity of Taluka town Kalol and the fact that some part of the lands of village Borisana is also acquired by AUDA, and the market value determined for the lands located in the sim of village Saij at Rs.35/- by this court cannot be ignored totally. The Reference Court, at the time of determination of the market value of the land in question, has considered all these relevant aspects and has rightly concluded that the market value of the lands acquired in question could be valued at or around Rs.70/- per square meter. However, the claimants themselves have restricted their claim to Rs.50/- per square meter. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case the amount of Rs.50/- per square meter is held to be reasonable compensation. Village Saij may be on the highway and at a short distance from Taluka town Kalol, but on the other hand the village Borisana, though in a different direction, is also situated on another highway and is at a distance of half a kilometer from Kalol. Village Saij may be on the highway and at a short distance from Taluka town Kalol, but on the other hand the village Borisana, though in a different direction, is also situated on another highway and is at a distance of half a kilometer from Kalol. Therefore, we are of the opinion that all the three cases considered by the Reference Court in support of the instant cases are comparable instances and we have no hesitation in concluding that the fact situation available on record is properly appreciated. Under the circumstances we are not inclined to accept the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant State that the market value determined by the Reference Court is on a higher side. 10. As a result of the above discussion and consideration of the facts and evidence available on record, we are of the opinion that the impugned judgment and awards is not assailable. We agree with the assessment of the evidence on the part of the Reference Court, the conclusions drawn therefrom and the findings of fact recorded. 11. It is pointed out by the learned advocate appearing for the land holders that the Reference Court has erred in deducting 5% amount in the case of new tenure land. In view of the decision of the apex court in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Babu Govind Gavate, reported in AIR 1996 SC 904 , the said direction should be held to be illegal and deserves to be set aside. This submission, obviously being a question of law, is not controverted by the learned counsel for the appellants. Hence the judgment and award shall have to be modified for this limited purpose. Consequently we hold that the compensation should be paid without any such deduction. 12. No other contentions have been raised by either side. 13. Accordingly these appeals are dismissed subject to the modification mentioned herein above. No order as to costs. Decree accordingly. Appeals dismissed.