M. R. CALLA, J. ( 1 ) ). Admit. Issue Notice. The learned Asstt. G. P. accepts the notice on behalf of the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Gandhinagar and Mr. A. J. Patel accepts the notice on behalf of the claimants. The learned Asstt. G. P. and mr. A. J. Patel waive service for the respective parties, i. e. , the Special Land acquisition Officer and the claimants. ( 2 ) ). Both the sides request that the matters may be finally heard. The matter was, therefore, heard further at length for final disposal. ( 3 ) ). In these three group of Appeals, the orders passed in the Land Acquisition references by the Reference Court have been challenged and this is the second round of litigation in these matters wherein the lands of villages Lekawala and Alampur were acquired. Whereas common questions of fact and law are involved in these appeals, we propose to decide all these three groups of Appeals (73 Appeals in all with 73 Civil Applications therein) by this common order. ( 4 ) ). The lands of village Lekawala, which is concerned in Civil Appeal Nos. 3199 to 3243 of 1998 (45 Appeals), were sought to be acquired for the staff quarters of Boarder Security Force through Notification under Sec. 4 which was issued on 19-6-1987 for which the Notification under Sec. 6 was issued on 4-9-1987 and the award was passed on 20-3-1989 awarding compensation at the rates of Rs. 6. 00, Rs. 7. 00 and Rs. 8. 00 per sq. mt. by the Land Acquisition Officer. ( 5 ) ). In other group of Appeals, i. e. . Civil Appeal Nos. 3859 to 3869 of 1998 (11 appeals), the lands of village Alampur were sought to be acquired through notification under Sec. 4 dated 19-6-1987 for which the Notification under Sec. 6 was issued on 4-9-1987 and the Award was passed on 20-3-1989 awarding compensation at the rate of Rs. 6. 00 per sq.- mt. ( 6 ) ). In the third batch of Civil Appeals, i. e. . Civil Appeal Nos. 6. 00 per sq.- mt. ( 6 ) ). In the third batch of Civil Appeals, i. e. . Civil Appeal Nos. 3870 to 3886 of 1998 (17 Appeals), the lands sought to be acquired were again of the same village alampur for which Notification under Sec. 4 was issued on 18-8-1988 and the Sec. 6 Notification was issued on 28-2-1989 and the Award was passed by the Land acquisition Officer on 28-2-1991 awarding compensation at the rates of Rs. 7. 00, rs. 7-50 ps. and Rs. 8. 00 per sq. mt. ( 7 ) ). There is no dispute that the lands in all the three groups of Appeals were sought to be acquired for the purpose of residential quarters for the Boarder Security force. Thereafter, in the cases pertaining to the village Lekawada, the Land acquisition Reference Nos. 783 to 827 of 1989 were made, the main Land acquisition Reference being Land Acquisition Reference Case No. 786 of 1989. The assistant District Judge decided the above References on 15-6-1993 and additional compensation at the rate of Rs. 74. 00, Rs. 83. 00 and Rs. 92. 00 per sq. mt. respectively was awarded making the total compensation to be Rs. 80. 00, Rs. 90. 00 and Rs. 100. 00 per sq. mt. respectively. The acquiring body filed the Civil Appeals before this Court and these Civil Appeal Nos. 341 to 385 of 1994 were decided by a Division bench of this Court remanding all the matters to the District Court for fresh evidence on 31-7-1996. After remand, new numbers were given to the Land Acquisition references because of the creation of the new Court at Gandhinagar and these Land acquisition Reference Nos. 297 to 340 of 1996, main case being Land Acquisition reference No. 300 of 1996, were decided on 13-2-1998, this time awarding the additional compensation at the rate of Rs. 67. 00. Rs. 76. 00 and Rs. 85. 00 per sq. mt. respectively making the total compensation at the rate of Rs. 73. 00, Rs. 83. 00 and Rs. 93. 00 per sq. mt. respectively. Against this Award dated 13-2-1998. the present appeals being Civil Appeal Nos. 3199 to 3243 of 1998 have been preferred. ( 8 ) ; In the other case. in which the lands of village Alampur were acquired, i. e. , land Acquisition Case No. 12 of 1986. 73. 00, Rs. 83. 00 and Rs. 93. 00 per sq. mt. respectively. Against this Award dated 13-2-1998. the present appeals being Civil Appeal Nos. 3199 to 3243 of 1998 have been preferred. ( 8 ) ; In the other case. in which the lands of village Alampur were acquired, i. e. , land Acquisition Case No. 12 of 1986. against the Award dated 20-3-1989, the Land acquisition Reference Nos. 214 to 224 of 1991 were made, main case being Land reference Case No. 222 of 1991. These References were decided on 20-1-1996 by the 2nd Joint District Judge at Ahmedabad, who awarded additional compensation at the rate of Rs. 74. 00 per sq. mt. making the total compensation to be Rs. 80. 00 per sq. mt. The acquiring body filed Civil Appeal Nos. 3057 to 3067 of 1996 before this Court against the order passed by the 2nd Joint District Judge, Ahmedabad on 20-1-1996 and these Civil Appeals were also remanded back to the District Court for fresh evidence by this Court by an order passed on 23-9-1996. On account of the creation of the new Court at Gandhinagar, the new numbers being Land acquisition Reference Nos. 105 to 115 of 1997 were given, main case being Land acquisition Reference No. 113 of 1997 and this time the Asstt. Judge at Gandhinagar decided the References on 13-4-1998 awarding additional compensation at the rate of Rs. 67. 00 and Rs. 77. 00 per sq. mt. respectively for unirrigated and irrigated land respectively, making the total at the rate of Rs. 73. 00 and Rs. 83. 00 per sq. mt. respectively. Against this award dated 13-4-1998 Civil Appeal Nos. 3859 to 3869 of 1998 have been preferred. ( 9 ) ). With regard to yet another set of lands of the same village Alampur pertaining to the Land Acquisition Case No. 1 of 1988. in which the Award was passed on 30-7-1990, the Land Acquisition Reference Nos. 285 to 301 of 1993 were made. the main case being Land Acquisition Reference No. 301 of 1993. On account of the creation of the new Court at Gandhinagar, the References were again numbered as Land Acquisition Reference Nos. in which the Award was passed on 30-7-1990, the Land Acquisition Reference Nos. 285 to 301 of 1993 were made. the main case being Land Acquisition Reference No. 301 of 1993. On account of the creation of the new Court at Gandhinagar, the References were again numbered as Land Acquisition Reference Nos. 131 to 147 of 1997, main case being Land acquisition Reference No. 147 of 1997, and the References were decided by the assistant Judge at Gandhinagar on 30-4-1998 and against this order dated 1 -5-1998, whereby the additional compensation at the rate of Rs. 83. 00, Rs. 83. 00 and Rs. 90. 00 per sq. mt. has been granted, making the total at the rate of Rs. 90. 00, Rs. 90. 50 ps. and Rs. 98/- per sq. mt. ; Civil Appeal Nos. 3870 to 3886 of 1998 have been preferred. ( 10 ) ). On behalf of the appellants in these Appeals the learned Counsel has argued that the rate at which the compensation has been granted by the Reference Court is more than ten times of the compensation, which had been awarded by the Land acquisition Officer and, therefore, the enhancement is excessive and disproportionate. . This argument by itself does not impress us at all. Merely because the additional amount of compensation, which has been granted by the Reference Court, is ten times or more than ten times, it can hardly be a ground to hold that the enhancement is unreasonable or inadequate. The rate of the compensation has to be examined and fixed on the basis of the material and evidence, which is made available on record. ( 11 ) ). The learned Counsel argued with reference to Para 23 of the impugned judgment passed by the Asstt. Judge in the Reference cases. It has been submitted that the Asstt. Commandant - Thomas K. I. vide Exh. 107 had deposed that the lands of village Lekawada were not fertile one and only one crop could be fetched per season and that he had also produced the sale deeds Exhs. 128 to 154 pertaining to the Survey Numbers of village Lekawada and that of village Palaj as mentioned in Para 23 of the impugned order. 107 had deposed that the lands of village Lekawada were not fertile one and only one crop could be fetched per season and that he had also produced the sale deeds Exhs. 128 to 154 pertaining to the Survey Numbers of village Lekawada and that of village Palaj as mentioned in Para 23 of the impugned order. The argument raised by learned Counsel of the appellant is that certified copies of the sale deeds, which had been produced by the witnesses, could not be rejected merely because the same had not been proved by the vendor or vendee and that it was submitted on the authority of the Supreme court decision reported in- 1995 (4) SCC 136 (Kumari Veeraiah v. State of A. P.) that these certified copies should have been held to be admissible in evidence as secondary evidence. The learned Assistant Judge, after considering the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court, and several decisions, which had been cited on behalf of the claimants, as have been referred in the impugned order, held that the ratio of the Supreme Court decisions was that the certified copies of the sale deed could not be admissible in evidence unless the vendor or vendee is examined to prove the consideration and the circumstances in which the sale deed was executed. The learned Asstt. Judge has opined that the contention raised on behalf of the opponent no. 2, i. e. . Assistant Director, B. S. F. could not be accepted. The consideration of this contention raised on behalf of the present appellant need not detain us any more in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in AIR 1996 SC 3469 (G. Narayan rao v. Land Acquisition Officer ). The Supreme Court has categorically held in this case that while determining the compensation for acquired lands either the vendor or the vendee should be examined in proof of the documents to establish the passing of the real consideration under the documents, the nature of the respective lands and whether the documents are genuine documents etc. It is for the Court to consider all the relevant facts to accept the correctness of the sale deeds and then consider whether they should form the basis to determine the compensation. in the absence of proof of above facts, there would be no evidence before the Court to place reliance on untested documents. It is for the Court to consider all the relevant facts to accept the correctness of the sale deeds and then consider whether they should form the basis to determine the compensation. in the absence of proof of above facts, there would be no evidence before the Court to place reliance on untested documents. Thus, where neither the vendor nor the vendee of the sale deeds was examined, such untested sale deeds could not be relied on while determining the compensation. In Kumari Veeraiah (supra), on which reliance has been placed by Mr. Jayant Patel, learned Counsel for the appellant, all that has been stated by the Supreme Court is that the certified copies of the sale deeds may be admissible in evidence as secondary evidence under Sec. 51-A of the Act since owners would be reluctant to part with their original sale deeds. However, holding the certified copies to be admissible as secondary evidence would not do away with the requirements of examination of the vendor or vendee. The same view was taken by the Supreme Court in the case of A. P. State Road Trans. Corpn. v. P. Venkaiah, reported in AIR 1997 SCW 2556 : AIR 1997 SC 2600 , after considering Kumari veeraiahs case (supra) earlier decided by the Supreme Court, on which reliance has been placed by Mr. Jayant Patel. Thus, the correct legal position, which obtains in this regard, is that whether the sale deeds in original are produced or not, the cases in which the certified copies are produced, the same may be considered as admissible in evidence as secondary evidence under Sec. 51-A subject to the requirement of the examination of the vendor or the vendee to testify not only the consideration paid but also other specific knowledge and the circumstances in which the sale deed came to be executed, nearness to the lands, etc. In absence of the examination of vendor or vendee the certified copies of the sale deeds cannot be relied on to determine the market value of the acquired lands. The true nature and situation of the respective lands are relevant and germane as comparable sales for determination of the compensation and are required to be brought on record through admissible evidence and tested on the anvil of common experience. It is not dispute that neither the vendor nor the vendee had been examined and. The true nature and situation of the respective lands are relevant and germane as comparable sales for determination of the compensation and are required to be brought on record through admissible evidence and tested on the anvil of common experience. It is not dispute that neither the vendor nor the vendee had been examined and. therefore, the mere production of the certified copies of the sale deed through the witness, who was serving as Asstt. Commandant, could not by itself make such certified copies of the sale deed to be admissible and, therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned Judge cannot be assailed on this ground, as has been sought to be done by the learned Counsel for the appellants and the contention raised in this regard on behalf of the appellants is hereby rejected. ( 12 ) ). This brings us to the question with regard to the comparative study of Vavol land judgment because it has been argued on behalf of the appellants that the situation of village Vavol is, far superior than the village Lekawada. According to the appellants, Vavol village is situated between Gandhinagar and Ahmedabad, it has a railway station and it also touches the City of Gandhinagar where all the developmental activities had taken place, whereas village Lekawada is on the other side of Gandhinagar and there is Sabarmati river in between and vast open spaces of Kharaba land, which are even today totally undeveloped. It was also submitted that in the case of Vavol lands, the order passed by the District Court had Been modified by the High Court of Gujarat and the rate was slashed down to Rs. 50. 00 per sq. mt. As against this, it was submitted on behalf of the claimants by Mr. A. J. Patel that the topography of this area, as per the Map Exh. 59 would show that Vavol and Lekawada are equi-distant from Gandhinagar and the total distance between Vavol and Lekawada is hardly 5 to 6 kms. According to Mr. A. J. Patel the only difference is that Vavol is situated on the western side and Lekawada is situated on the eastern side of Gandhinagar but both the lands are equi- distant from the central point of Gandhinagar and that if Vavol is having an additional facility of railway track, Lekawada is situated on the Highway passing through Chiloda. A. J. Patel the only difference is that Vavol is situated on the western side and Lekawada is situated on the eastern side of Gandhinagar but both the lands are equi- distant from the central point of Gandhinagar and that if Vavol is having an additional facility of railway track, Lekawada is situated on the Highway passing through Chiloda. It was also submitted by Mr. A. J. Patel that in the case of the Award relating to vavol lands, the matter was taken to the Supreme Court against the High Courts order whereby the price had been slashed down to Rs. 50. 00 per sq. mt. and the supreme Court by a reasoned order had rejected the Special Leave Petition and thus, the rate of Rs. 50. 00 sq. mt. , as determined by the High Court in the case of Vavol lands, was not interfered with and the same has become final. ( 13 ) ). So far as the location of the village Lekawada as compared with the Vavol lands is concerned, there appears to be no doubt that Lekawada is situated on the eastern side of Gandhinagar and village Vavol and village Lekawada are equidistant from Gandhinagar and the area nearby Lekawada cannot be said to be of exactly identical situation to that of village Vavol but that fact cannot be lost sight of that village Lekawada is just adjoining to Gandhinagar and as a matter of fact. the lands of village Lekawada have also been taken to form the city of Gandhinagar for the purpose of B. S. F. and C. R. P. F. and the acquired lands of Lekawada are just near well developed and fast developing city of Gandhinagar. Merely because this village lekawada is situated on the eastern side across the river Sabarmati, it should not make any significant difference because it is pointed out that the acquired land is connected through the bridge across the river and it is also near the Highway. Village alampur is also situated just near the village Lekawada across the river and, therefore, so far as these two villages are concerned, their situation is mutually identical, but so far as the development of the area nearby these two villages are concerned, the same cannot be said to be the same as in the case of village Vavol lands. Village alampur is also situated just near the village Lekawada across the river and, therefore, so far as these two villages are concerned, their situation is mutually identical, but so far as the development of the area nearby these two villages are concerned, the same cannot be said to be the same as in the case of village Vavol lands. It cannot be said that the Award passed in the case of Vavol lands has no relevance but at the same time, the situation of these two villages is not exactly identical. They are comparable to some extent but it cannot be applied as a whole. Near village Vavol there is an industrially developed area and certain industries have come up nearby this village Vavol and- village Vavol is also at the junction of the road coming from Kalol side and going towards Ahmedabad side from Gandhinagar. There is also a railway station nearby the village Vavol. The railway track actually passes through the village Vavol. May be that near the villages Lekawada and alampur there are C. R. P. F. and B. S. F. establishments. These two villages are not exactly adjoining the Highway. They are little away from the Highway as per the map. These two villages are on the side of the road joining the Highway and gandhinagar of course Alampur being more near to the Highway than Lekawada. It was also submitted that the case of Lekawada and Alampur lands is to be differentiated from Vavol because the main consideration in the case of Vavol land was that it used to give yield of Rs. 10,000. 00 per Bigha. As against it with regard to the lands of Lekawada and Alampur it has been submitted that as per evidence these lands are more fertile in comparison to the lands of village Vavol. It has been submitted on the basis of Exhs. 13 to 29 - Form Nos. VII/xii that it gives the crops of groundnut and wheat and reference has been made to the monsoon crop, winter crop and summer crop and while referring to the depositions made by the witnesses, it has been submitted that looking to the number of crops, the fertility of this land is certainly higher. 13 to 29 - Form Nos. VII/xii that it gives the crops of groundnut and wheat and reference has been made to the monsoon crop, winter crop and summer crop and while referring to the depositions made by the witnesses, it has been submitted that looking to the number of crops, the fertility of this land is certainly higher. We have considered all the aspects of the matter and we do feel that the rates, which have been fixed by the Reference Court in these cases, are slightly on the higher side and on the basis of the comparative details and the situation of the villages Alampur and Lekawada on one side vis-a-vis village Vavol, particularly keeping in view the Vavol lands being nearest to the more developed area and in absence of such a developed area near to villages Lekawada and Alampur, even if these two villages are equidistant from Gandhinagar and even if it is taken that they are not far away from Gandhinagar, the rates have to be reduced at least by 10% than what has been granted by the Reference Court because the judgment in the case of Vavol lands has weighed with the Reference Court while enhancing the rates of compensation. It may be pointed out that the Award with regard to the Vavol lands was very much there even at the time when the matter was remanded by the High Court in the earlier Civil Appeal Nos. 341 to 385 of 1994 on 31-7-1996 and the Division Bench had also observed that in absence of sufficient material before the Reference Court, the Reference Court had gone by an award relating to village Vavol, which is on the western side of Gandhinagar. Despite the order and the opportunity given by the High Court vide order dated 31-7-1996 while remanding the matter, the appellant did not take care to lead required evidence and they rest contented by simply examining one witness, i. e. . Assistant Commandant, who produced certified copies of the sale deed and beyond this no evidence was adduced. ( 14 ) ). Considering the entire facts and material available on the record, we direct as under :- (a) So far as the lands of village Lekawada, which have been acquired (under sec. 4 Notification dated 19-6-1987) are concerned, the rates of the land per sq. mt. ( 14 ) ). Considering the entire facts and material available on the record, we direct as under :- (a) So far as the lands of village Lekawada, which have been acquired (under sec. 4 Notification dated 19-6-1987) are concerned, the rates of the land per sq. mt. are reduced by 10% in each of the three items, i. e. , instead of Rs. 73. 00, Rs. 83. 00 and Rs. 93. 00, the same will be as under :- rs. 73 - Rs. 7. 30 = Rs. 65. 70 ps. Rs. 83 - Rs. 8. 30 = Rs. 74. 70 ps. Rs. 93 - Rs. 9. 30 = Rs. 83. 70 ps. (b) So far as the lands of village Alampur, which have been acquired (under sec. 4 Notification dated 19-6-1987) are concerned, the rates of the land per sq. mt. are reduced by 10% in each of the two items, i. e. , instead of Rs. 73. 00 and Rs. 83. 00, the same will be as under :- rs. 73 - Rs. 7. 30 = Rs. 65. 70 ps. Rs. 83 - Rs. 8. 30 = Rs. 74. 70 ps. (c) So far as the lands of village Alampur, which have been acquired (under sec. 4 Notification dated 18-8-1988) are concerned, the rates of the land per sq. mt. are reduced by 10% in each of the three items, i. e. , instead of Rs. 90. 00, Rs. 90. 50 ps. and Rs. 98/-, the same will be as under :- rs. 90 - Rs. 9. 00 = Rs. 81. 00 ps. Rs. 90. 50 - Rs. 9. 05 = Rs. 81. 45 ps. Rs. 98 - Rs. 9. 80 = Rs. 88. 20 ps. All these 73 Appeals are partly allowed, as above and the impugned orders, passed by the Reference Court in these matters shall stand modified accordingly. In all other aspects the impugned orders are upheld and the claimants shall be entitled to all consequential benefits in accordance with law. No order as to costs. In view of the orders passed in the main Appeals, no orders are required to be passed in these 73 Civil Applications with regard to stay and the same are disposed of accordingly. .