B. C. PATEL, J. ( 1 ) THESE appeals are preferred by the claimants against the common award rendered by the Extra Assistant Judge, Mehsana in Land Reference Case Nos. 1798/96 to 1807/96 on 10. 1. 01, awarding the compensation for the lands to the claimants at the rate of Rs. 17. 00 per sq. mtrs. inclusive of the compensation already awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. The relevant record is supplied by the claimants. ( 2 ) NOTIFICATION under Sec. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was published on 20. 2. 92 for acquiring the lands of the claimants. After following the procedure, notification under Sec. 6 of the Act was published on 15. 9. 92. Thereafter, the Land Acquisition Officer by a common award dated 6. 3. 94 held that the claimants are entitled to get compensation at the rate of Rs. 2. 40ps. per sq. mtr. for non-irrigated lands and at the rate of Rs. 3. 60ps. per sq. mtr. for irrigated lands. The claimants, being aggrieved, sought references and ultimately the references were placed before the Extra Assistant Judge, Mehsana, who disposed of the same by a common award. The claimants, being aggrieved by the aforesaid award, preferred these appeals claiming the compensation at the rate of Rs. 70. 00 per sq. mtr. The Special Land Acquisition Officer in his award has indicated in para 5 that the lands are jirayat i. e. irrigated and the crops of Millet, Castor, Tuver, Till etc. are taken. There is facility of irrigation. It is also pointed out in the award by the Land Acquisition officer that at the distance of 12 km. there is Gandhinagar-Sarkhej highway. ( 3 ) YATINBHAI Pramukhbhai Patel was examined on behalf of the applicants. He was cultivating the lands covered under Land Reference Case Nos. 1802/96, 1804/96 and 1805/96. He has stated that his lands and the lands of other agriculturists are adjoining to each other. The lands are good and fertile lands. The village is situated on Sanand-Kalol State highway. He has referred about the facilities such as telephone, school, post-office etc. available at the village. He has also stated that before the lands were acquired, he was cultivating Wheat, Bajra, Cotton etc. He has produced 7/12 forms issued by Talati vide exh. 10 to 22. The village is situated on Sanand-Kalol State highway. He has referred about the facilities such as telephone, school, post-office etc. available at the village. He has also stated that before the lands were acquired, he was cultivating Wheat, Bajra, Cotton etc. He has produced 7/12 forms issued by Talati vide exh. 10 to 22. In his evidence, he has referred that near-by the village, there is one Laboratory, Prakruti Residential Plot, Nikita Farm and Narmada Deep Village. He has also stated that the lands acquired for Modern Teriwool Factory is situated at a distance of about 4 km. from the village. He has also pointed out in his evidence that villages Garodia, Sola and Gota are nearby villages. He has pointed out that the distance between Gota to Unali, the village where the lands are situated, is about 8 km. He has stated that the High Court is at a distance of 8 km. from the lands. He has denied the suggestion made by the learned A. G. P. that there is no facility of irrigation. He has also denied the suggestion that the fertility of the land is not of high quality. He has also denied the suggestion that certain lands are non-irrigated (though no details have been put to the witness ). In cross-examination, he has stated that Kalol is situated at a distance of 8 km. from village Unali. It is required to be noted that Kalol is an industrial town having number of factories. ( 4 ) IN his evidence, he has pointed out that the lands situated at Garodiya, which is situated just adjoining village Unali, were acquired for Narmada Canal for which ultimately the claimants preferred Land Reference Case No. 1048/96. He has stated that the village boundaries of Garodiya and Unali are common. The Reference Court awarded Rs. 70. 00 per sq. mtr. for the lands acquired at village Garodiya against which the State Government preferred First Appeal No. 1536/00. He has produced the copy of the judgment at exh. 26. He has emphasized that the said lands were acquired for Narmada Canal and the fertility of the lands of village Garodiya and Unali are the same. At village Ranchherda, the lands were acquired wherein the Court awarded Rs. 70. 00 per sq. mtr. the copy of which is produced vide exh. 27 and 37. 26. He has emphasized that the said lands were acquired for Narmada Canal and the fertility of the lands of village Garodiya and Unali are the same. At village Ranchherda, the lands were acquired wherein the Court awarded Rs. 70. 00 per sq. mtr. the copy of which is produced vide exh. 27 and 37. The lands at adjoining village Vadsar were acquired wherein the Reference Court awarded Rs. 70. 00 per sq. mtr. , the copy of the award is produced vide exh. 28. The lands were acquired in village Ognej which is nearby village declaring that the claimants are entitled to Rs. 217. 00 per sq. mtr. , the copy of the judgment is produced at exh. 29 and 30. ( 5 ) BEFORE us the map is produced to show that the villages are adjoining to each other. No doubt village Ognej appears to be at a distance as, in between there are lands of 3 or 4 villages. However, it is even not submitted before us that the price which is awarded for the lands of village Ognej should be awarded to these claimants. Therefore, we need not consider the price awarded for the lands at village Ognej. The learned counsel Mr. Patel submitted that what the witness has stated is completely corroborated by the map in so far as the common boundaries of villages Ranchherda, Garodiya and Unali are concerned. The learned A. G. P. , appearing in the matter was not in a position to dispute this aspect. This matter is required to be considered keeping in view of the aforesaid circumstances. Mr. Patel, learned counsel appearing for the claimants submitted that despite the fact that the evidence was tendered, the Reference Court has not appreciated the evidence in its proper perspective. THE Dy. Executive Engineer, Dilipkumar Kantilal Shah has deposed before the Court that the boundaries of village Ranchherda and Garodiya are adjacent to each other. He has also admitted that the lands of these villages were acquired for Dholka branch of Narmada Canal. He has also admitted that for the lands situated at village Garodiya, the amount was awarded at the rate of Rs. 70. 00 per sq. mtr. and the same has been confirmed by the High Court. He has also admitted that the lands of these villages were acquired for Dholka branch of Narmada Canal. He has also admitted that for the lands situated at village Garodiya, the amount was awarded at the rate of Rs. 70. 00 per sq. mtr. and the same has been confirmed by the High Court. He has admitted in his evidence that the lands are adjoining to each other and the boundaries of the villages are also adjacent to each other. In view of the aforesaid facts, Mr. Patel, learned counsel submitted that the Reference Court has committed serious error in not awarding the compensation at the rate at which the compensation was awarded for the lands situated in the adjacent village. Mr. Patel, learned counsel submitted that the Reference Court was aware about the amount of compensation awarded for the nearby lands and for that purpose there was sufficient material on the record. There is no question of considering the price awarded for the lands situated at village Gota as no prayer was made before the Reference Court that the price paid for the lands acquired at village Gota should be awarded for the lands acquired at village Unali. When there is specific evidence about the village situated at about 8 km. and to be precise, as per the witness for the State at 14 km. , it would not make any difference because the amount of compensation was not to be awarded keeping in mind the distance of the road namely the National Highway 8-A, Sarkhej-Gandhinagar. The Reference Court was required to bear in mind the amount of compensation awarded to the claimants for the lands situated at village Ranchherda and Garodiya. The Reference Court was required to keep these aspects in mind while determining the market price. ( 6 ) THE Reference Court in para 18 has examined the matter as if the claimants were claiming on the basis of lands having potential value for the purpose of development of industries. The Reference Court has observed that on the point of development, as per the Dy. Engineer, there is no industrial unit nearby village Unali. There is no Primary Health centre, no Post-Office, no Railway Station. Even the Reference Court has stated that village is not situated on Mehsana-Ahmedabad highway. The attention of the Reference Court was drawn to exh. 24 and 49. Engineer, there is no industrial unit nearby village Unali. There is no Primary Health centre, no Post-Office, no Railway Station. Even the Reference Court has stated that village is not situated on Mehsana-Ahmedabad highway. The attention of the Reference Court was drawn to exh. 24 and 49. It was specifically pointed out about village Garodiya and Ranchherda but the Reference Court has observed that maps produced before the Court were silent on the point of distance. When the witnesses deposed before the Court that villages are adjacent to each other, there is hardly any question of distance between the two. The witnesses who have said that the villages are adjoining to each other are supported by the map which is produced by the State Government and it seems that the Reference Court has committed error in arriving at a conclusion that the map is silent about the distance. When boundaries are common, there is no question of distance. ( 7 ) THE Reference Court was aware that if the award passed by the competent Court was comparable, it would be relevant for fixation of compensation and even if that award relates to nearby area of town can be considered comparable, having regard to reasonable proximity. On this point, the attention of the Reference Court was drawn to the decision of the Apex Court in case of The State of Madras V/s A. M. Nanjan and another reported in AIR 1976 S. C. 651 and the case of Shivlal Keshavlal Shah V/s Additional Special Land Acquisition Officer reported in 9 G. L. R. 752. It is required to be stated that again the Apex Court has expressed the same view in case of Thakarsibhai Devjibhai and others V/s Executive Engineer, Gujarat and another reported in 2001 AIR SCW 2417. The potential value of the land in so far as the agricultural aspect is concerned was required to be borne in mind by the Reference Court. There is nothing to show that the fertility of all the 3 villages viz. Ranchherda, Goradiya and Unali are not the same. The potential value of the land in so far as the agricultural aspect is concerned was required to be borne in mind by the Reference Court. There is nothing to show that the fertility of all the 3 villages viz. Ranchherda, Goradiya and Unali are not the same. When the witnesses have deposed before the Court, it was for the State Government to place on record sufficient evidence to point out to the Reference Court that the lands are not equally fertile so as not to entitle the claimants to get the compensation which other people have got i. e. the claimants whose lands were acquired situated at village Garodiya and Ranchherda. The Land Acquisition Officer, in the award has referred that the lands are irrigated lands. The crops of Millet, Castor, Tuver, Till etc. were being taken. About the road, he has stated that at 12 km. distance, there is Sarkhej-Gandhinagar highway. Thus, there is not only evidence of the claimants but there is documentary evidence produced before the Reference Court by the Land Acquisition Officer himself through his award. Village Form No. 7/12 has been produced on the record to support the say of the cultivators. Yatinbhai Patel who is examined on behalf of the claimants has, on this aspect, stated that the documents are produced vide exh. 10 to 22. ( 8 ) ON what basis the question was put to the witness by the State Government that there is no facility of irrigation is difficult to understand. When before the Land Acquisition officer, it was clear that the facility of irrigation is available and the lands are irrigated, it seems that for the sake of putting a question, the witness has been cross-examined and no material has been elicited during the cross-examination so as to suggest that the fertility of these lands are inferior to the lands situated at village Garodiya and Ranchherda. When the documentary evidence and oral evidence was placed on the record, in our opinion the Reference Court has committed an error in examining the case as if the claimants are claiming higher compensation keeping in mind the potential value of the land for the purpose of development of industries. The Reference Court has ignored the value of the land so far as the agricultural produce is concerned. The Reference Court has ignored the value of the land so far as the agricultural produce is concerned. In the case of Thakarsibhai Devjibhai (supra), against the Reference Court decision, the State preferred appeals which were partly allowed by reducing the compensation at the rate of Rs. 10. 00 per sq. mtr from the rate of Rs. 58. 00 which was determined by the Reference Court by its judgment and award dated 14. 10. 98. In the said case, the High Court reduced the rate of compensation on the ground that the distance between the land covered by exh. 16 and the land acquired is 5 km. and that area of land under exh. 16 is small i. e. about 2 hectare while the area covered under the acquisition is much more i. e. 20 hectare approximately. In that case, the claimants had adduced sufficient evidence describing the nature and situation of the acquired lands to be similar to other acquired lands of the same village with special reference to exh. 16. With regard to the question of distance, the Apex Court in para 12 pointed out that "so far the other question of distance between the two classes of lands, that by itself cannot derogate the claim of the claimant unless there are some such other materials to show that quality and potentiality of such land is inferior. " The Apex Court further pointed out that "no evidence has been led on behalf of the State to find difference between the two. In view of this the inference drawn by the High Court for reducing the compensation by Rs. 10. 00 per sq. mtr. cannot be sustained. " ( 9 ) MR. PATEL, learned counsel appearing for the claimants submitted that in the instant case, the lands situated at village Garodiya were acquired vide notification under Sec. 4 of the Act published on 20. 2. 92 and the Reference Court made an award at the rate of Rs. 70. 00 per sq. mtr. vide exh. 25. The said award was placed before the Reference Court. He further submitted that against the said decision F. A. No. 1536/00 to 1551/00 were preferred before this Court and the Division Bench (Coram : J. M. Panchal and M. C. Patel,jj) on 12. 1. 70. 00 per sq. mtr. vide exh. 25. The said award was placed before the Reference Court. He further submitted that against the said decision F. A. No. 1536/00 to 1551/00 were preferred before this Court and the Division Bench (Coram : J. M. Panchal and M. C. Patel,jj) on 12. 1. 00 confirmed the award with respect to the lands situated at village Garodiya for which notification under Sec. 4 was issued on 20. 2. 92. The said judgment was also produced before the Reference Court vide exh. 26. So far as village Ranchherda is concerned, Mr. Patel submitted that notifications under Sec. 4 were published on 28. 9. 91, 19. 9. 91 and 3. 10. 91 for different lands. The Reference Court awarded Rs. 70. 00 in all per sq. mtr. , the judgment and award was produced on record vide exh. 27. He submitted that against the said award the State preferred appeals being F. A. No. 300/00 to 347/00 and the Division Bench of this Court (Coram : M. R. Calla and J. R. Vora, JJ) dismissed the appeals on 11. 1. 01. The copy of the said judgment is made available to us for our perusal. Mr. Patel, learned counsel further submitted that before the Reference Court exh. 28, an award made by the Reference Court was produced in connection with lands situated at village Vadsar which were acquired under notifications issued under sec. 4 of the Act on 28. 8. 91 and 19. 8. 91. The Reference Court awarded Rs. 70/in all per sq. mtr. AFTER hearing the learned advocates, seeing the map and reading the evidence, we are of the view that villages Garodiya and Ranchherda are adjoining to village Unali. The village boundaries are common and about fertility the claimants have led evidence but it was for the State to point out, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in case of Thakarsibhai (supra), the difference between the two, if any. In our opinion, the State Government is maintaining a special Department for maintaining the records of the villages, use of the lands, nature of the lands, yield, rainfall etc. So far as the claimants are concerned, they have produced 7/12 forms maintained by the village Talati to indicate the nature of the crop cultivated. They would see the villages while visiting. They have stated on oath about other villages. So far as the claimants are concerned, they have produced 7/12 forms maintained by the village Talati to indicate the nature of the crop cultivated. They would see the villages while visiting. They have stated on oath about other villages. It is on the basis of this, the witness would form an opinion that the lands at village Garodiya and Unali are of the same fertility and even the Land Acquisition Officer has noted about the lands being irrigated i. e. facilities of irrigation being available and different crops being cultivated by the cultivators. It would have been for the State to produce adequate material before the Reference Court to indicate that the fertility is not the same or the lands are inferior. Merely because there is a distance between the 2 villages would not derogate the claim of the claimants as pointed out by the Apex Court in the case of Thakarsibhai (supra) unless there is some such other material to show that quality and potentiality of such land is inferior. ( 10 ) WE have perused the judgment delivered by the Division Bench of this Court (Coram : J. M. Panchal and M. C. Patel, JJ) in F. A. no. 1536/2000 to 1551/2000 decided on 12. 1. 00. The lands were acquired for Narmada Project of its branch known as Dholka Branch Canal. The Division Bench in para 5 of the judgment observed that the witness pointed out that village Garodiya has all facilities of water, light, school, telephone, cooperative societies etc. and that the acquired lands were irrigated lands as well as equal in level and highly fertile. The witness for the claimants stated before the Reference Court that village Garodiya was at a distance of 11 kms. away from Ahmedabad city and 8 kms. away from Sarkhej-Gandhinagar Highway. Sanand-Ahmedabad as well as Kadi-Ahmedabad road passes through the village and village Sanand is hardly at a distance of 6 kms. away from village Garodiya. There are nearby villages such as Godhavi, Manipur, Ghuma, Palodia and Ranchcherda. The witness stated before the Court in that case that villages Ranchcherda, Manipur, Godhavi and Garodiya are situated in one line and they have dealings with Ahmedabad city and Sanand town. The witness deposed before the Court that the lands situated at village Nidharda and lands of village Garodiya were equal and similar in fertility. The witness stated before the Court in that case that villages Ranchcherda, Manipur, Godhavi and Garodiya are situated in one line and they have dealings with Ahmedabad city and Sanand town. The witness deposed before the Court that the lands situated at village Nidharda and lands of village Garodiya were equal and similar in fertility. In that case, the lands situated at village Nidharda were acquired for which award was produced vide exh. 38. There was evidence that boundaries of village Godhavi touches the village Garodiya. The village Godhavi and village Garodiya were at a equal distance from Ahmedabad-Sarkhej highway. The claimants were cultivating different crops such as Juvar, Millet, Castor etc. The lands situated at village Godhavi were acquired for Narmada Project and ultimately Reference Court in Land Acquisition Reference Cases no. 240/96 to 258/96 dated 16. 4. 99, held that the claimants were entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs. 87. 00 per sq. mtr. over and above the compensation which was awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. The Division Bench pointed out that this award was taken into consideration. The Division Bench considering the fact that the agricultural lands of villages Godhavi and Nidharda were similar in all respects to the lands acquired, held that the Reference Court committed no error in awarding the compensation at the rate of Rs. 70. 00 per sq. mtr. With regard to the lands situated at village Ranchherda, F. A. Nos. 300/01 to 347/01 were preferred and the same were disposed of by the Division Bench of this Court (Coram : M. R. Calla and J. R. Vora, JJ) on 9. 1. 01 and 11. 1. 01. Copy of the judgment was made available to us. The attention of the Court was drawn to several awards made for the lands situated at nearby villages. In para 4 of the judgment, reference is made to various awards and the villages with notification date etc. The learned counsel submitted that in para 4 of the judgment, the Court has referred to the lands situated at Ognej, Jaspur, Godhavi, Garodiya which were acquired. In para 4 of the judgment, reference is made to various awards and the villages with notification date etc. The learned counsel submitted that in para 4 of the judgment, the Court has referred to the lands situated at Ognej, Jaspur, Godhavi, Garodiya which were acquired. The Court considered the fact that the boundaries of villages Garodiya and Ranchherda are touching each other and that there was no dispute that the three villages namely Ranchherda, Garodiya and Godhavi are contiguous, awarded compensation in the case of the lands of village Garodiya on the basis of the previous award which had been passed in relation to the lands of village Godhavi. The learned counsel, relying on the aforesaid decision, submitted that it is clear that when the claimants have placed before the Reference Court sufficient evidence to indicate that the lands have fertility of the same nature, the Land Acquisition Officer has also placed on record the evidence about the crop, facilities, irrigation etc. , there was no earthly reason, in absence of any evidence adduced by the State, to discard the say of the claimants that the lands are equal in so far as the fertility is concerned to that of the lands situated at village Garodiya and Ranchherda. ( 11 ) THE learned A. G. P. appearing in the matter submitted that the Reference Court has considered the evidence in so far as the future development is concerned. There being no industries, it cannot be said that it had any potential value in so far as the development is concerned. Suffice it to say that the Court was required to consider the matter from the angle of agricultural development and agricultural yield only. Under Sec. 23 (1) of the Act, in determining the amount of compensation to be awarded for land acquired under this Act, the Court shall take into consideration the market value of the land on the date of the publication of the notification under Sec. 4 of the Act. The claimants have not made claim for any potential value over and above the market value. The claimants have not made claim for any potential value over and above the market value. Where the property has potentiality, that aspect is required to be taken into consideration and in our opinion, the use of agricultural lands is the only criteria in the instant case to be taken into consideration and not the potential value in view of the development for the purpose of industries, in absence of industrial development. Considering the fact that the villages Ranchherda and Garodiya are adjacent and for the lands situated at village Ranchherda, an amount of Rs. 70. 00 per sq. mtr. has been awarded by the Reference Court which has been confirmed by two different Benches of this Court, we are of the opinion that considering the date of notification being of the same year, the claimants in the instant case are entitled to get the compensation at the rate of Rs. 70/per sq. mtr. with other statutory benefits. The appeals are allowed accordingly with costs. ( 12 ) MR. PATEL submitted that the lands were acquired in the year 1992 and the possession was taken in the year 1987. He submitted that since 1987, these agriculturists are suffering and some of them have lost their agricultural fields and they are suffering hardship. Of course, in the meanwhile they must have received some amount in view of the award made by the Land Acquisition Officer. Mr. Patel made a grievance that the State has not deposited even the amount as awarded by the Reference Court and these poor agriculturists are left at the mercy of others. Certainly, that is not a tolerable thing. Under the circumstances, we direct that 1/4th of the awarded amount shall be deposited within a period of 4 weeks from today and the State shall see that the amount is disbursed to the claimants after proper verification. 1/4th of the awarded amount shall be deposited and disbursed accordingly within a period of one month thereafter. The remaining 50% of the amount shall be paid within a period of 3 months from today. The appeals are allowed. In view of the aforesaid order, the Civil Applications do not survive and hence rejected. .