JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned AGP Mrs. VS Pathak for appellant Special Land Acquisition Officer and Mr. BS Patel, learned Advocate for respondents original claimants. 2. By filing this group of appeals, appellant has challenged judgment and award made by Reference Court namely 6th Additional Senior Civil Judge at Vadodara in Land Reference Case No. 961 to 966 of 1990, 970, 972, 977 to 978 of 1990 (Main Case No. 963/90) wherein Reference Court has awarded Rs.4,00,000.00 lacs per Hactor with other consequential benefits. 3. Considering submissions made by both learned advocates in this group of appeals, appeals are admitted. Learned Advocate Mr. BS Patel waives notice of admission on behalf of respondents and requests this Court to decide the matters finally today itself. Therefore, with consent of both learned Advocates, matters are taken up for final hearing today itself. 4. Aforesaid reference cases were arising before the reference court under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, in common award no. 85 of 1985 made under section 11 of said Act on 13.10.1987 in respect of the lands of village Kumetha, Taluka Vadodara, District Vadodara which have been acquired for construction of Vadodara Branch Canal of Narmada Project. Section 4 notification was published on 16.1.1986 and thereafter, section 6 notification was published on 10.7.1986. Thereafter, notices under section 9(3)(4) of the Act were issued and possession of acquired lands was taken over as per the details contained in statement annexed to award of Special Land Acquisition Officer and thereafter, in common award no. 85 of 1985, Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation of Rs. 14,500.00 per hector. Therefore, aforesaid references were made under section 18 of the Act at the instance of claimants wherein reference court made impugned award which is under challenge in this group of appeals. 5. Mrs. Pathak, learned AGP for appellant in this group of appeals submitted that the reference court has committed gross error in relying upon Exh.50,judgment rendered in LRC No. 543 of 1990 rendered by 8th Jt. Civil Judge (SD) Vadodara dated 18th August, 2004 wherein reference court has awarded Rs.400000/- per hectare. She submitted that it ought to have been appreciated by reference court that the said judgment Exh. Civil Judge (SD) Vadodara dated 18th August, 2004 wherein reference court has awarded Rs.400000/- per hectare. She submitted that it ought to have been appreciated by reference court that the said judgment Exh. 50 was in respect of village Dumad of District Vadodara and the distance between both village i.e. Village Kumetha and village Dumad is 15 kms and, therefore, compensation awarded by reference court in judgment Exh. 50 cannot be made basis while considering present matters. She further submitted that it ought to have been appreciated by the reference court that the village Dumad is situated on Express National Highway and, hence, market price of the land of both the villages cannot be compared for fixing market price of the lands in question. As per her submission, reference court has committed error in relying upon Exh. 50 while fixing market price of the lands in question and, therefore, matter would require interference of this Court. She further submitted that the reference court ought toh ave considered that while passing award, Special Land Acquisition Officer has considered sale instances of the same village i.e. Village Kumetha and, therefore, when sale instances of same village were available, reference court has wrongly relied upon the sale instances of another village i.e. Village Dumad. She submitted that as per settled legal position, if the sale instances of surrounding land or of same village are available, then, the market value fixed by the reference court in respect to another village should not be taken into consideration while fixing market price. She therefore submitted that the reference court has committed error in fixing market price of acquired land as per judgment in respect of village Dumad. She submitted that reference court has committed error in ignoring sale instances of same village i.e. Village Kumetha. She also submitted that the fertility and potentiality of the land belonging to both different villages ought to have been considered and same potentiality and fertility cannot be there but that aspect has not at all been considered by reference court. She relied upon decision of apex court reported in 2005 (6) SCC 454 , and 2001(7) SCC 650 and submitted that the matter would require interference of this court. Except aforesaid submissions, no other submission is made by learned AGP Mrs. Pathak and no other decision is cited by learned AGP Mrs. Pathak before this Court. 6. She relied upon decision of apex court reported in 2005 (6) SCC 454 , and 2001(7) SCC 650 and submitted that the matter would require interference of this court. Except aforesaid submissions, no other submission is made by learned AGP Mrs. Pathak and no other decision is cited by learned AGP Mrs. Pathak before this Court. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Patel, learned Advocate for claimants in this group of appeals vehemently submitted that reference court has rightly examined issue for which no error is committed by reference court. He submitted that reference court has rightly relied upon Exh. 50 for deciding matter at issue and in doing so, no error has been committed by reference court. 7. I have considered submissions made by both learned advocates. I have also perused impugned award as well as documentary evidence produced by both parties. Considering award in question, reference court has come to conclusion that claimants are entitled for Rs.4,00,000.00 per hectare, means Rs.4 lacs is considered to be market price of land in question. Issues framed by reference court were whether award made by land acquisition officer is not fair and adequate, if yes, what additional compensation the claimants are entitled to. Reference court held that the compensation awarded by special land acquisition officer is not fair and adequate and, therefore, made award as aforesaid. Reference court has examined comparability between two villages as aforesaid. Relevant discussion is made by reference court at page 9, from para 10 to 12 which is quoted as under: 10. Issues No.1 and 2 : Heard the learned Advocate Mr. JB Patel for the claimants, Learned Government Pleader Mr. RN Pandya for the opponents Nos.1 and 2 and Mr. AM Desai, Ld. Advocate for the opponent NO.3. Issues No.1 and 2 both are bound co-related and, hence, they are discussed and decided together. Claimants herein have challenged land acquisition award passed in Compensation Case NO. JB Patel for the claimants, Learned Government Pleader Mr. RN Pandya for the opponents Nos.1 and 2 and Mr. AM Desai, Ld. Advocate for the opponent NO.3. Issues No.1 and 2 both are bound co-related and, hence, they are discussed and decided together. Claimants herein have challenged land acquisition award passed in Compensation Case NO. 85/85 and stated that the Land Acquisition Officer has not taken into consideration sev eral factors, which are required to be considered while fixing price for compensation for the lands acquired and it is submitted that the whole base of the compensation, which land acquisition officer has based are several sale instances cited in award which are of previous years, which is not relevant on the date of notification under section 4, wh ich Land Acquisition Officer has considered as basis for themarket price. It can be seen that sale instances have prompted Land Acquisition Officer to pass his decision on market price. It can be taken judicial notice of that after 1980, there are briskly hike in price of land and as the Baroda District, which is just adjoining Vadodara City, it can be well presumed that lands are bound to fetch more price. This aspect appears to have overlooked by the land acquisition Officer. It is true that the Narmada Canal Project is a Project for the benefit of public at large, and, therefore, future price hike and variation are required to be fixed on other count. In this case, though in the oral deposition, the claimant has stated several other fa ctors regarding the crops from the agriculture but at the time of arguments, the Ld. Advocate for the claimant has relied upon Exh. 36 and Exh. 50. Exh.36 is a certified copy of the judgment in LR Case No. 110/89 which was given by 2nd Extra Assistant Judge, Vadodara on 7.3.1996 wherein the Hon'ble 2nd Extra Assistant Judge, Vadodara has awarded a sum of Rs.80,000.00 per hector towards actual market price of the acquired lands and in that case, the notification under sec. 4 was published on 25.9.1985. Whereas, the claimants have relied on the judgment Exh. 50 in LR Case NO. 543/90 given by the 8th Jt. Civil Judge (SD) Vadodara on 18.8.2004, wherein, the Hon'ble Court has awarded a sum of Rs.4,00,000.00 per hector as actual market price. 4 was published on 25.9.1985. Whereas, the claimants have relied on the judgment Exh. 50 in LR Case NO. 543/90 given by the 8th Jt. Civil Judge (SD) Vadodara on 18.8.2004, wherein, the Hon'ble Court has awarded a sum of Rs.4,00,000.00 per hector as actual market price. Now, considering the facts and circumstances and evidence on records, the opponents have relied on the judgment in First Appeal NO. 2151 to 2168 of 2005 dtd. 4.8.2005 given by the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad, and the said appeals were filed by aggrieving the judgment given by the 5th Jt. Civil Judge, (SD) Vadodara on 30.11.2002 in LR Case No.165 to 182 of 1983 and in that case, the notification under sec. 4 was published on 18.6.1981. Now, looking to the evidence produced by the claimant's side Exh. 50 which is a copy of the judgment in LR Case NO. 499/90 to 550/90 dtd. 18.8.2004, and in that case, the Notification u/S. 4 was published on 20.8.1986 whereas in the present case, the notification u/S.4 was published on 16.1.1986. So, the evidence Exh.50 is required to be taken into consideration for fixing the actual market price of the present LR Case Cases, as there is only two months span of time which is there in the notification u/S. 4 of both the cases. So, it is more relevant to take into consideration Exh. 50 than Exh. 36 in fixing the actual market price of the acquired lands. Considering the evidence on record, it can be said that the market value of the land of village Kumetha at the time of acquisition and before acquisition was more than the amount claimed by the claimants. This ratio is also laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the pronouncement reported in the case of Special Land Acquisition Officer,Kaira v/s. Shantilal Jivabhai Patel reported in 1993 (2) GLR page 1289 and it is held that the market value be considered by the authority of the Court concerned, which is as on the date of publication of notification u/S. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Ld. The Ld. Advocate for the claimants has argued that the Land Acquisition Officer could have considered the reasonable amount in award though he has not done so and he has calculated merely on the basis of surmises on certain sale transactions of low prices therefore, compensation awarded to claimants are inadequate. The value of the property increases year by year. If the land acquisition officer might have considered inflation and increasing prices of the properties, then, he might have taken correct approach while fixing the actual market price in respect to the property acquired. Though he has not done so, and awarded compensation merely on the basis of surmises, which is not correct. Hence, the compensation awarded to the claimants are inadequate. 11. The learned Government Pleader Mr. RN Pandya has argued that the claimant had accepted compensation without protest. Learned Advocate Mr.JB Patel on behalf of the claimants has relied that while referring reference claimants to the court, special land acquisition officer has produced appendix with every application fixing detailed information about award. In that appendix, special land acquisition officer himself has mentioned that claimants have accepted compensation under protest. Moreover, in case of illiterate farmers whose lands were acquired, it is the duty of the land acquisition officer that they should ask farmers and write protest about compensatoin. Nowhere in land acquisition Act, it is mentioned that compensation showed be accepted in writing the farmers have write to take oral protest. That above view is held by Hon'ble High Court in 1979 (2) GLR page 79. That the opponents have not produced any documentary evidence to show that claimants have not accepted compensation under protest. In their written statement also, opponents have not mentioned anything about protest. And the Hon'ble Court has not framed any issue regarding protest only oral evidence of the protest, the land acquisition officer is not sufficient to decide whether claimants have accepted compensation under the protest. Opponents have not examined land acquisition officer, who has declared the award and paid compensation and, therefore, plea raised by the opponents that claimants have accepted compensation without protest is not considered. And, therefore, issues no.1 is decided in affirmative. 12. Opponents have not examined land acquisition officer, who has declared the award and paid compensation and, therefore, plea raised by the opponents that claimants have accepted compensation without protest is not considered. And, therefore, issues no.1 is decided in affirmative. 12. Considering all the above facts and evidence on record, it is to be noted that the land of village Dumad is situated nearby village Kumetha and the acquired lands of both the villages are same in all nature and considering the fertility and potentiality of the acquired land of both the villages, so if I fix actual market price of the acquired lands, of village Kumetha at Rs.4,00,000.00 per hector, then, it will serve purpose and also met ends of justice. 8. Considering aforesaid observations made by reference court for deciding matter, reference court has come to conclusion that village Dumad is situated near village Kumetha and acquired land of both villages are same in nature considering fertility and potentiality of acquired land of both villages and, therefore, reference court has made award in question as aforesaid. According to my opinion, reference court has rightly examined issue and has rightly considered facts which are on record and finding given by reference court cannot be considered to be baseless and/or perverse but, according to my opinion, same are quite cogent and convincing and, therefore, matter does not require any interference of this court. Therefore, there is no substance in this group of appeals and same are required to be dismissed. 9. Therefore, in result, these appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs. Amount, if any, deposited by appellant in registry of this Court in these appeals be transmitted to concerned reference court immediately. Registry of this Court is directed to draw decree accordingly and then to send R&P if any to concerned trial court immediately.