R. S. GARG, J. ( 1 ) IT is to be noted for convenience that separate groups of appeals have been filed being aggrieved by award made by the Reference Court in different awards of different dates. For our convenience and for proper understanding, we are taking up the facts from First Appeal No. 1017 of 004. ( 2 ) IT is to be noted that for construction of Narmada Canal large chunks of land were required to be acquired by the Government from different villages from wherein the canal was to pass. Certain land of village Dantali were acquired in the year 1985-86, land of village Jamiyatpura were acquired and thereafter some more land were acquired from village Dantali in the year 1988. In the present matter, Section 4 Notification was issued on 6. 8. 1988/24. 5. 1988 while declaration under Section 6 was made on 10-15/3/1989, 5. 9. 1988, 22. 11. 1988. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded the compensation in Land Acquisition Case Nos. 4/88, 6/88, 9/88 and 10/88 at the rate of Rs. 4. 50 per square metre. The holders of the land being aggrieved by the quantum awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer sought for Reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. Accordingly, different References were made by the Land Acquisition Officer to the Court. Before the Reference Court the claimants claimed at the rate of Rs. 100/- per sq. mtr. and in support of that claim they examined Ramanlal Khodidas vide Exh. 16, Amrutlal Chunilal vide Exh. 116 and produced some documents including some judgements of this Court which were in relation to the acquisition of the land of villages Dantali and Jamiyatpura for laying Narmada Canal. The respondents examined Pallaviben Ghanshyambhai vide Exh. 41. No other witnesses were examined by either party. ( 3 ) THE learned Trial Court after recording the evidence and hearing the parties, observed that in relation to the acquisition of 1985/1988 Land Acquisition Officer awarded Rs. 2. 50 per sq. mtr. , which was enhanced to Rs. 54. 50 per sq. mtr. And the award made by the Reference Court was maintained by the High Court and that the judgement of the High Court in the earlier matter may provide sufficient guidelines. 2. 50 per sq. mtr. , which was enhanced to Rs. 54. 50 per sq. mtr. And the award made by the Reference Court was maintained by the High Court and that the judgement of the High Court in the earlier matter may provide sufficient guidelines. It also observed that the village was in the process of progress and as such 10 per cent escalation on the land price fixed by the High Court may be given. However, while calculating amount the trial court missed to look into the fact that the High Court had awarded s. 52/- per sq. mtr. , over and above a sum of Rs. 2. 50 awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer and as such had awarded Rs. 54. 50 per sq. mtr. , it calculated rather read, the earlier compensation at the rate of Rs. 52/- per sq. mtr. Applying the principle of 10 per cent escalation per year it awarded Rs. 58. 50 per sq. mtr. inclusive of Rs. 4. 50 per sq. mtr. , as awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. ( 4 ) THE appellant before us are not satisfied with the award, therefore, they are before this Court. The submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant is that Rs. 54. 50 per sq. mtr. Is to be taken as base price then escalation would be Rs. 5. 50 per year and for two years it would be Rs. 11/- while for three years it would be Rs. 16. 50 in addition to what had been awarded by the High Court. Strong reliance was placed upon a judgement of the Supreme Court in the matter of Special Land Acquisition Officer, BYDA, Bagalkot Vs. Mohd. Hanif Sahib Bawa Sahib reported in AIR 2002 SC 1558 to contend that grant of 10 per cent escalation every year would be a reasonable calculation. On the merits it is submitted that in view of the findings recorded by the High Court in its earlier judgement the village has prospects and if the prospects are taken in their true perspective then it would float on the surface of the record that the village has a potential of the progress and it is in the process. It is further submitted that the appellants though are entitled to higher amount, but if are claiming at the rate of Rs. 65/- or Rs. 70/- / Rs. It is further submitted that the appellants though are entitled to higher amount, but if are claiming at the rate of Rs. 65/- or Rs. 70/- / Rs. 71/- per sq. mtr. then the claim cannot be said to be excessive or exorbitant. ( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the respondent State, on the other hand, submitted that the award in favour of the appellant is on the higher side and the judgement of the Supreme Court in the matter of Special Land Acquisition Officer , BYDA, Bagalkot Vs. Mohd. Hanif Sahib Bawa Sahib (supra) cannot be applied with blindfold. For comparison of land of Jamiyatpura and Dantali it was submitted that the village Jamiyatpura is more close to Gandhinagar Sarkhej Highway while village Dantali is at a distance of 1. 5 kilometre or more from the highway. It is further submitted that barring ipse-dixit of the appellants no positive evidence has been brought on record nor any Sale Deed etc. , has been brought on record to suggest that there had been steep rise in the price of the land of the village. It is also submitted that the appellants are not entitled to any better or further escalation. ( 6 ) SO far as the oral evidence led by the appellants in form of statement of Ramanlal Khodidas Exh. 16 and Amrutlal Chunilal Exh. 116 are concerned, those have been considered by the Court below. Star witness Amrutlal Chunilal Patel has stated before the Court that the distance between village Dantali and Kalol is 7 kilometre, Gandhinagar is 8 kilometre away while Ahmedabad is 9 kilometre away. It is stated that village Dantali is 1 kilometre far away from Ahmedabad-Mehsana highway and is two and half kilometre away from Sarkhej-Gandhinagar highway. It is also stated that in Navneet Printing Press situate in village Dantali 300 to 500 workers are working. It is also stated that about 11 tube wells are operational in village Dantali and the witness was irrigating his land from the tube wells. It is also stated that they were taking three crops every year and after deducting all the expenses net profit could be Rs. 15,000/- to Rs. 18,000/- per year. He has stated that on earlier occasion the land of the same village were acquired and the matter went upto High Court and the High Court had awarded particular sum. It is also stated that they were taking three crops every year and after deducting all the expenses net profit could be Rs. 15,000/- to Rs. 18,000/- per year. He has stated that on earlier occasion the land of the same village were acquired and the matter went upto High Court and the High Court had awarded particular sum. It is also stated in the statement that the lands of village Jaspur and Jamiyatpura were also acquired. The witness has produced copies of the awards in the Court. It is also stated by him that the Narmada Canal passes through the village Jamiyatpura and enters into village Dantali and thereafter moves to village Jaspur. It is also stated in the statement on oath that the lands of village Dantali are superior to the land of Jamiyatpura and of village Jaspur. The witness has produced certain maps showing the outskirts of village Dantali and has also filed a certificate of talati. He had stated that in the year 1988 the price of the land of village Dantali was Rs. 2 lakh per vigha. Beyond this, this witness has not said anything. The other witness namely Ramanlal Khodidas has also not brought anything on record other than what was said by Amrutlal Chunilal Patel. ( 7 ) SO far as the statement regarding taking of three crops and saving of Rs. 15,000/- to Rs. 18,000/- per year per vigha is concerned, the Court below in its considered opinion, has rightly disbelieved that evidence. Barring this statement of one claimant that he was earning Rs. 15,000/- to Rs. 18,000/- per year per vigha, nothing has been brought on record. No accounts have been produced in the Court. No records have been produced. No sales records have been produced in the Court. When certain agricultural produce are sold in the market then market tax is levied on the same, the particulars of market tax as levied could be produced as primary and preliminary evidence to show as to what was the sale price but for the reasons best known to the appellants they have not brought on the record any evidence in relation to the said sales. Assuming the goods were sold privately to private dealers then also the claimants could produce the sale receipts or could examine some purchaser but they have not done so. Assuming the goods were sold privately to private dealers then also the claimants could produce the sale receipts or could examine some purchaser but they have not done so. In our opinion, in absence of such evidence it would not be possible to rely upon the statements of the witness. ( 8 ) THOUGH it is stated in the evidence that the land of village Dantali are better in comparison to the land of Jaspur and Jamiyatpura but how these land are better has not been stated. It is obvious that the appellants and their witnesses are satisfied with the oral statement only and therefore they thought that no further evidence was required to be brought on record. ( 9 ) TRUE it is that certain industrial activities have been carried out in the village but for claiming better compensation some evidence is required to be brought on record to show to the Court that the prices are marching on the path of escalation. A simple statement that the prices would be Rs. 2 lakhs per year per vigha on the date of the acquisition would not be a legal evidence. Not even a single sale deed for the period 1985 to 1988 has been filed. If the sale records are not available then the Court would have to go with the guess work. The guess work may depend on the potential of the land, the present user of the land, its location and whether any industrial activities are taking place in or near or around the land. ( 10 ) IN the present matter the evidence in relation to Navneet Press has been brought on record but the appellants for the reasons best known to them have not said that in what particular year Navneet Press was established. They have simply stated that Navneet Press situated in village Dantali " 300 to 500 workers are working. However, Navneet Press was already in existence prior to 1985 and if the fact was taken note of by this Court in its earlier judgement, then existence of Navneet Press would not add to the benefit of the appellants. ( 11 ) THE distance between Mehsana highway and Sarkhej Gandhinagar highway were the same what those were in the year 1985. The location of the land is not changed. The village is where it was. ( 11 ) THE distance between Mehsana highway and Sarkhej Gandhinagar highway were the same what those were in the year 1985. The location of the land is not changed. The village is where it was. From the map submitted before the lower Court it would appear that Gandhinagar Sarkhej highway is more close to village Jamiyatpura in comparison to village Dantali. Our perusal of the map would show that Jamiyatpura is less than half distance of village Dantali. Under these circumstances, if some Courts or the High Court has awarded more compensation of land of Jamiyatpura then the said price cannot be applied for the land acquired in village Dantali. The distance from highway and potential use of the land would certainly decide the question of quantum. ( 12 ) IT is always to be noted that in relation to particular land there are certain factors which may enhance its price or which may even reduce its market price. In a given case where crematorium is created more near to the land which was used as residence, the price of the land would reduce because people would not like to reside at a place like that and see burning dead bodies on the the pyre near or around their residence. In a given case where pond is dug near the residential land the price of the land would reduce. In a given case where trenching ground is established near the residential area the price of the land would reduce. In a given case where the land is located in earthquake prone area the price of the land would reduce. However, in a given case one may not find a single purchaser. In a given case certain factors may lead to enhancement or escalation in the price. If further facilities are made available then the price may rise. A village which was dark and no water facility was available there if gets facility of water and light, the land may fetch higher price. Industrialisation in or near or around the land may be one of the attributes/consitutents for the higher price. If the construction activities` are continuous and are regular in process it may add to the additional price. Industrialisation in or near or around the land may be one of the attributes/consitutents for the higher price. If the construction activities` are continuous and are regular in process it may add to the additional price. If agricultural land is being diverted to the residential land and construction activities are taken up then the land which is yet not diverted would have better potential and may fetch higher price in comparison to the agricultural land. If the potential is still in the future the rise of the price would be positive. ( 13 ) IN the present matter unfortunately the appellants witnesses barring referring to the history of the earlier acquisition, the distance between highway and the villages and the existence of Navneet Press, did not bring any evidence on record. ( 14 ) IN a given case where nothing is brought on record to show that the prices are rising or there is much potential in the land or because of the prospects in the land higher price may be fetched, it would not be prudent to award higher price than what has already been ascertained in the earlier orders. ( 15 ) IN absence of any evidence to show or suggest or prove that the village lands are being sold on the higher price, we are unable to hold that the appellants have proved that they are entitled to higher price. ( 16 ) SO far as evidence and the merits of the matter are concerned, we must reject the claim which is based upon the oral evidence. ( 17 ) SO far as the judgement in the matter of Special Land Acquisition Officer, BYDA, Bagalkot Vs. Mohd. Hanif Sahib Bawa Sahib (supra) is concerned, in the said matter the Reference Court observed that the land under acquisition under the Notification was in close proximity of the land under acquisition in the appeals. The Court observed that the parties could not lead any evidence by way of comparable sale transaction to prove market value. The Court also observed that evidence was not forthcoming for adoption of capitalization method. The Reference Court however found that the base price of the land in that area was at Rs. 3/- per sq. ft. for the year 1979. It accordingly awarded 10 per cent escalation for every subsequent year. The Court also observed that evidence was not forthcoming for adoption of capitalization method. The Reference Court however found that the base price of the land in that area was at Rs. 3/- per sq. ft. for the year 1979. It accordingly awarded 10 per cent escalation for every subsequent year. Under these circumstances, the higher price was fixed and the matter went upto the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court in paragraph 13 of the judgement observed as under:"after due deliberations on the contentions raised by the Counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that on the given facts and circumstances of the present case the appreciation of 10 per cent per annum given for the subsequent years is neither excessive nor unreasonable so as to call for our interference. " (emphasis supplied) ( 18 ) THE judgement of the Supreme Court nowhere laid that principle that escalation of 10 per cent every is to be adopted as a clear method for determining the compensation. The Supreme Court did not even say that in a given case where the earlier value is known to the Court then too 10 per cent escalation is to be added every year. The Court did not decide the issue as a question of law or as a matter of policy that in a given case 10 per cent escalation is to be given irrespective of the potential of the land. The Supreme Court did not say that even after the optimum price is reached then too 10 per cent escalation is to be given every year. The observations made by the Supreme Court were in reference to the facts of the said case. In the said matter no evidence was brought before the Court and the Court found that 10 per cent escalation in comparison to the base price would be reasonable escalation. The judgement of the Supreme Court which was given on its own facts cannot be universally applied. Every judgement is on its own facts and if similar facts are in the hands then one may apply the said judgement to reach to a positive conclusion. Law does not say anything beyond that. It would be illegal to read the observations of any Court out of their context. In a given case where law is interpreted by the Supreme Court/high Court then that interpretation would be binding on all concerned. Law does not say anything beyond that. It would be illegal to read the observations of any Court out of their context. In a given case where law is interpreted by the Supreme Court/high Court then that interpretation would be binding on all concerned. If certain observations are made on particular facts and on the circumstances of the case then such observation cannot be applied with blindfold. In the present matter in our opinion the Court below was unjustified in awarding escalation of 10 per cent but as the State has not filed any appeal or Cross Objection we refuse to make further comment on that part. ( 19 ) THE judgement of the Supreme Court in the matter of Special Land Acquisition Officer, BYDA, Bagalkot (supra) cannot be applied to the present case. On the merits we have already found that the appellants have not brought on record any evidence to show or suggest that the land could be sold at a higher price. ( 20 ) AT this stage, it would be necessary to refer to two judgements of this Court in First Appeal No. 2147 of 2001 and First Appeal 2598 of 2001 wherein Rs. 54. 50 per sq. mtr. , was awarded against acquisition of land of Dantali. As no distinguishing features have been brought on record, we may hold that the Court below was justified in following the earlier awards made by the Reference Court and upheld by the High Court but the principle on which the learned counsel for the appellant is relying that 10 per cent escalation should be given every year would not be correct. The learned Court below has relied on the judgement of this Court in the matter of Officer on Special Duty Vs. Jamkubehn Kalidas Sodha reported in 1992 (1) GLH 417 . The said judgement was on special facts where evidence was brought on record to show that the land had better potential and there was a price rise. ( 21 ) WE have already observed that a judgement is always on facts of the case and it cannot be applied without appreciating the facts of case on hands. In the matter of Special Land Acquisition Officer Vs. Motibhai Mohanbhai reported in 1997 (2) GLH 773 the Court again proceeded on the typical facts of the case. ( 21 ) WE have already observed that a judgement is always on facts of the case and it cannot be applied without appreciating the facts of case on hands. In the matter of Special Land Acquisition Officer Vs. Motibhai Mohanbhai reported in 1997 (2) GLH 773 the Court again proceeded on the typical facts of the case. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that 10 per cent gradual increase every year is to be awarded in favour of the claimant is a misconceived argument. ( 22 ) TAKING into consideration the totality of the circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the appellants have failed to make out a case for any interference so far as the question of quantum of the compensation is concerned. ( 23 ) IT is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the Court below has not awarded interest on the amount of solatium to which the appellants were entitled. In the matter of Sunder Vs. Union of India reported in (2001) 7 SCC 211 Constitution Bench of the Apex Court has observed that interest under Sections 34 and 28 of the Land Acquisition is payable on the solatium amount. The Supreme Court was very categorical in observing that function of the Legislature is to ensure that the amount calculated under Section 23 reaches the person concerned at the time of passing of award or taking over possession of the land " any delay in making of such payment, entitles the person to receive interest on whole amount including the solatium. The award made by the Court below is modified to the extent that each of the appellants shall be entitled to interest in accordance with the provisions of Sections 23, 28 and 34 of the Act on the additional solatium. The appeals to the extent indicated above are allowed. Let separate decree be framed in each case. No order as to costs. .