JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned Additional Government Pleader Mr. Umesh A. Trivedi for appellants and Mr. AV Prajapati learned Advocate for respondents claimants. Considering their submissions, this group of appeals and civil applications are admitted. Learned Advocate Mr. AV Prajapati appearing for respondents claimants waives notice of admission on behalf of respondents claimants in each of these appeals and civil applications. In facts and circumstances of case and with consent of both learned advocates, present appeals and civil applications are taken up for final hearing today. 2. By filing these appeals, appellants are challenging award made by Reference Court, Mehsana in Group of LAR No. 1315 of 2005 to 1325 of 2005 dated 13th December, 2007 vide Exh. 36wherein reference court has awarded Rs.35.00 being additional amount per square meter as compensation in favour of respondents claimants with other consequential benefits under section. 23-1-A and 23(2) of Land Acquisition Act. 3. Learned Addl. GP Mr. Trivedi for appellant submitted that lands of original claimants situated in sim of village Ajabpura, Taluka Becharaji District Mehsana were acquired for purpose of construction of Narmada Main Canal. Section 4 notification was published on 27.7.1995 and after following necessary formalities such as publication of notification under sec. 6 on 29.2.1996 as well as service of notice under sec. 9 for hearing claimant under Act, Special Land Acquisition Officer declared his award on 6.7.1998 whereby Special Land Acquisition Officer awarded Rs.2.40 ps. Per square meter for non irrigated land and Rs.3.60 ps. Per square meter for irrigated land for acquired land. He further submitted that against said award made by Special Land Acquisition Officer, references were made before reference court under sec. 18 of Act at instance of claimants wherein reference court made aforesaid award on 13.12.2007 which is under challenge in this group of appeals. 4. Learned Addl. GP Mr. Trivedi raised contention that Reference Court has committed gross error in deciding reference fo which reference court is not having jurisdiction and its award is contrary to law and evidence. He submitted that Special Land Acquisition Officer has passed award after taking into consideration potential value of land, fertility and site thereof, fasten growth thereof etc. which aspects have been totally ignored by Reference Court while passing impugned award. He submitted that Special Land Acquisition Officer has passed award after taking into consideration potential value of land, fertility and site thereof, fasten growth thereof etc. which aspects have been totally ignored by Reference Court while passing impugned award. He also submitted that it ought to have been appreciated by reference court that Special Land Acquisition Officer has passed award after due diligence and after considering all aspects. He further submits that reference court has erred in not appreciating as per settled legal position, power of reference court while exercising powers under Sec. 18 of Act is limited and reference court is supposed to record reason if different view is taken from one taken by authority below. He submitted that in case of ONGC Ltd. versus Sendhabhai Vastram Patel & Others, 2005 (6) SCC 454 , apex court has held that if reference court intended to defer with opinion of land acquisition officer, it was bound to assign sufficient and cogent reason thereof but in present case, reference court has not given any cogent reason while fixing market price of acquired land. He further submitted that in Shaji Kuriakorse versus IOC Ltd., 2001 (7) SCC 650 , apex court has held that while fixing market value of acquired land, comparable sale method of valuation is preferred then other methods of valuation of land such as capitalization of net income method or expert opinion method. It is to be noted that in present case, special land acquisition officer has considered all aspects before determining market price and hence reference court has committed error apparent on face of record. It was also his submission that reference court has erred in not properly considering oral as well as documentary evidence on record. 5. Learned Advocate Mr. Prajapati appearing for respondents claimants submitted that reference court has rightly awarded Rs.35.00 per square in respect of land under acquisition. He further submits that reference court has considered award in respect of village Modhera wherein Rs.50.00 were awarded by reference court per square meter which has been reduced to Rs.41.00 per square meter by this court in first appeal filed by State authority. Learned Addl. GP Mr.Trivedi submitted that section 4 notification was dated 27th July, 1995 and in first appeal filed by appellant, this court has awarded Rs.41.00. Learned Advocate Mr. Learned Addl. GP Mr.Trivedi submitted that section 4 notification was dated 27th July, 1995 and in first appeal filed by appellant, this court has awarded Rs.41.00. Learned Advocate Mr. Prajapati submitted that previous award in respect of same village Ajabpura has been considered by reference court wherein first appeal no. 306 to 319 of 2008 with first appeal no. 873 to 886 of 2008 were filed by appellant wherein order was passed by this court on 7th August, 2008 andafter considering facts, this court has reduced amount from Rs.50.00 to Rs.41.00 in all appeals filed by appellant. Therefore, he submitted that in respect of facts of present case, same village, Ajabpura, having section 4 notification dated 6th December, 1995 and, therefore,reference court has rightly awarded Rs.35.00 being additional amount in favour of claimant and no interference is required by this court. 6. I have considered submissions made by both learned advocates. I have also perused impugned award made by reference court. Before reference court, pursuant to application Exh. 8 given by applicants in Reference Case No. 1315 of 2008, reference case no. 1315 to 1325 of 2005 were consolidated and evidence was recorded in reference case no. 1315 of 2005. Land Acquisition Officer awarded Rs.3.60 for irrigated land and Rs.2.40 per square meter for non irrigated land. Written objections were filed by appellant raising contention that land acquisition officer has rightly considered potentiality of land in question as well as previous sale instances of last years from date of section 4 notification. As per pleadings of parties, reference court framed issues in para 3 of award and answered same in favour of claimants as per para 3 of award. Issue no.1 was whether compensation awarded by land acquisition officer is insufficient, improper and meager which was answered in affirmative while discussion all three issues together. After considering arguments of learned advocate for claimant Smt. SK Patel as well as learned Government Pleader Shri DR Trivedi for appellants and then considered that all the applicants are farmer and agricultural income is the only source of their livelihood and their lands have been compulsorily acquired for public purpose. Thereafter, reference court considered provisions of section 23 of Land Acquisition Act which provides that farmers whose lands have been compulsorily acquired are entitled to claim and receive just compensation of their lands. Thereafter, reference court considered provisions of section 23 of Land Acquisition Act which provides that farmers whose lands have been compulsorily acquired are entitled to claim and receive just compensation of their lands. Thereafter, reference court considered evidence of Danaji Shankarji Thakor who was examined on behalf of applicants at Exh. 13 who is an applicant in LAR No. 1315 of 2005. According to his evidence, amount awarded by land acquisition officer is inadequate and meager amount and, therefore, it was not accepted by them. It was also deposed by him that acquired lands were fertile and even land wherein they were using fertilizer and there is tubewell near the land and thereby lands were being irrigated for all three seasons. It was also deposed by him that in said lands, they were taking crop of Raido, Jiru, Isabgul, Rajako, etc. during winter season and during summer season, they were taking crop of Bajri, Poyoniar, Juvar etc. and in monsoon, they were taking crop of Bajri, Cotton,Gawar etc. and were receiving crop production of Rs.45 to 55 thousand per vigha and excluding 1/5th therefrom towards costs, they were receiving net production worth Rs.36,000.00 to Rs.44,000.00 per vigha by using high quality seeds and fertilizers. It was deposed by him that claimants were claiming Rs.50.00 per square meter. It was submitted by applicant that lands of village Modhera near to his village were acquired for purpose of Narmada Canal Project Main Canal as per compensation case NO. 25 of 1995 wherein land reference no. 147 of 2002 to 1065 of 2002 were decided earlier by Reference Court, Patan wherein section 4 notification was published on 11.7.96 and court awarded additional amount of Rs.50.00 per square meter. Copy of said award was produced by him before reference court which was exhibited with consent from other side. It was also deposed by him that lands of village Modhera which is a nearby village were acquired for purpose of Narmada Project Main Canal wherein LR Case NO. 991 of 2002 to 1002 of 2002 were decided by Reference court Patan and additional amount of Rs.50.00 was awarded against which first appeal no. It was also deposed by him that lands of village Modhera which is a nearby village were acquired for purpose of Narmada Project Main Canal wherein LR Case NO. 991 of 2002 to 1002 of 2002 were decided by Reference court Patan and additional amount of Rs.50.00 was awarded against which first appeal no. 2832 of 2006 to 2835 of 2006 were filed before this court which came to be decided by this Court on 9.7.2007 and amount of Rs.41.00 per square meter was determined in said group of appeals arising from LR Case No. 991 of 2002 to 1002 of 2002 decided by reference court, Patan. Copy of that order of this court produced by claimants before reference court was considered by reference court. Map was also produced before reference court in respect of village Ajabpura which suggests that village Ajabpura and Modhera are having common boundary. It was deposed by said claimant before reference court that his village is developing village having pakka roads, situated just near to District and Taluka Head Quarter and connected by pakka roads with villages like Modhera, Vadavali, Mesra, Panchasar, Chanasma, Becharaji, Patan, Mehsana, Harij, Sami, Radhanpur etc. It was also deposed by him that his village is situated on the road. It was also deposed by him that his village is having Milk Society, Oil Seeds Society, Dispensary, Educational Institutions, Bank, Telephone Exchange, Provision Stores etc. and most of the persons in village are engaged in business and service and since lands in village are too much less, could be purchased with too much high prices. Said witness was cross examined by appellants wherein it was admitted that he is not aware of the basis on which land acquisition officer determined price of land. It was also admitted by him that he has no any basis or evidence to show that lands have been sold also at price of Rs.10.00 per square meter. It was also admitted by him that the rain falling in their area is less and irregular. It was also admitted by him that his village is not having any industrial or business development. It was stated by him that his village is situated at distance of two miles from village Modhera and about ten miles from Bahucharaji. It was also admitted by him that the rain falling in their area is less and irregular. It was also admitted by him that his village is not having any industrial or business development. It was stated by him that his village is situated at distance of two miles from village Modhera and about ten miles from Bahucharaji. During course of his cross examination on behalf of opponent no.2, it was stated by him that it is not correct that there would be cost upto 50% in agricultural produce. It was admitted that Canal is going from Ajabpura to Samisa and Brahmanvada. It was admitted that village Modhera is big village and village Ajabpura is small village but it was denied that his village is at remote place. It was also stated that his village is near to Samisa village while clarifying that it is also near to village Modhera. While appreciating aforesaid evidence of claimant, reference court has considered that claimant himself is an illiterate farmer, therefore, it is natural that he may not be having any exact accounts of income of agriculture and it is also fact that being illiterate person, could not have been able to produce any evidence before land acquisition officer at the relevant time. Thereafter, reference court considered that during cross examination of said witness for claimants, appellants have not been able brought on record any fact on basis of which evidence given by claimant should not be accepted completely. 7. Thereafter, reference court considered evidence of witness Prajapati Rameshbhai Kacharabhai at Exh.24 who was examined on behalf of appellants who stated that lands under acquisition are having facility of irrigation. In his cross examination, it was admitted by him that boundary of village Ajabpura and Modhera is common. It was also admitted that lands in question are irrigated and they are being irrigated by way of private bore and if there is facility of irrigation, then, crop of three season could be obtained. It was also admitted by him that land acquisition officer has not obtained opinion of any Agriculture Officer or expert in respect of crops being received from land. It is also admitted by him that other lands of same village were acquired and land reference cases thereof have been tried in reference court at Patan and judgment has come. It was also admitted by him that land acquisition officer has not obtained opinion of any Agriculture Officer or expert in respect of crops being received from land. It is also admitted by him that other lands of same village were acquired and land reference cases thereof have been tried in reference court at Patan and judgment has come. Contention of claimant that there is common boundary of village Ajabpura and Modhera has been admitted by this witness who is Government witness on duty. 8. Reference Court also considered oral evidence of witness Yogendrakumar Jawaharlal Gupta at Exh. 34 examined on behalf of appellant no.2 who admitted in his cross examination that village Modhera and Ajabpura are having comon boundary and village Ajabpura is having primary school, milk society, health center and connected with pakka road. It was also admitted by him that these are the irrigated lands. It was also admitted by him that no opinion was invited from any expert as regards fertility of land and after considering his evidence, it was observed by reference court that evidence of said witness is supporting case of claimants that lands are irrigated land and village Modhera and Ajabpura are having common boundary. Thereafter, reference court considered award Exh. 28 having section 4 notification dated 27.7.95. It was stated therein that some lands are irrigated lands and some lands are non irrigated and but two Government witnesses examined on behalf of appellants admitted that lands acquired are irrigated land. No evidence was produced by land acquisition officer for establishing that price determined as per award is just, reasonable and proper. Reference court has also considreed that acquisition officer considered sale deeds of nearby lands and has relied upon sale deed of lands forming part and parcel of survey No. 143, 16, 102, 157, 26, 25/1 which documents have been executed in 1993, 1994, 1995 and 1996 but no such sale deeds have been produced by appellants before reference court to justify determination of price of acquired lands on basis of those sale deeds. Therefore, reference court held that price determined by land acquisition officer in award cannot be considered as just price. Thereafter, reference court considered map Exh. 29 which was showing that village Ajabpura is near to villalge Modhera and away from Brahmanwada and while going from Modhera to Brahmanwada, village Ajabpura would come in between. Therefore, reference court held that price determined by land acquisition officer in award cannot be considered as just price. Thereafter, reference court considered map Exh. 29 which was showing that village Ajabpura is near to villalge Modhera and away from Brahmanwada and while going from Modhera to Brahmanwada, village Ajabpura would come in between. After appreciating documentary and oral evidence as considered above, reference court held that it is certainly proved that earlier, lands of Modhera, Brahmanwada and Ajabpura were acquired and land reference cases arising from said acquisition have been over and it is also proved that all lands are irrigated land and price determined by acquisition officer is too much low and no satisfactory reason has been given by special land acquisition officer to justify price determined by him and there is common boundary of village Modhera and Ajabpura. 9. Thereafter, reference court considered that it is not possible to determine price on the basis of income of land and even on the basis of sale deeds of surrounding lands also, it is not possible to determine price because there is no any documentary evidence produced on record which could be believed and in light of these facts, reference court was of the opinion that the price of these lands could be determined while keeping in view price of surrounding land acquired and, therefore, reference court considered decision of apex court in 1996 (SC) page 4473 in case of State of Madras versus AM Manjan and others wherein it was held by apex court that if award declared by competent court is proper from view point of comparision, then, for determining lands situated in neighbourhood of such land, earlier award could be considered and accepted. Reference Court also considered decision of this court reported in 1993 (2) G LR 1289 in case of Special Land Acquisition Officer, Kheda versus Shantilal Jivabhai Patel wherein it has been held that the price of the land prior to date of section 4 of Act should be taken into consideration. Reference court also considered decision of this court reported in 1999 (2) GLR page 1357 in case of 2nd Additional Land Acquisition Officer versus Chunilal wherein it is held that the decision given by reference court in earlier case can be taken into consideration for deciding price of land in subsequent case. Reference court also considered decision of this court reported in 1999 (2) GLR page 1357 in case of 2nd Additional Land Acquisition Officer versus Chunilal wherein it is held that the decision given by reference court in earlier case can be taken into consideration for deciding price of land in subsequent case. In said decision, it was also observed by this court that if lands covered by earlier judgment and lands in question i.e. Lands under acquisition are having common boundary, then, there is nothing objectionable in considering earlier decision for determining price of land. Thereafter reference court considered decision in LR Case No. 732/02 to 745/02 wherein reference court, Patan passed award on 19th May, 2005 and considered Rs.50.00 as market price of land under acquisition and against said award, appeals were preferred by appellants before this court. Thereafter, reference court considered decision of this court in first appeal no. 2886 to 2898 of 2006 produced before it at Exh. 33 which is relating to village Brahmanwada wherein price of those lands were determined at Rs.22.00 but said decision was not applied by reference court since it was relating to lands of village Brahmanwada as Brahmanwada is at too much distance from village Modhera Thereafter, reference court considered Exh. 32 whereby decision in LRC NO. 1156/02 to 1162/02 was produced before it decided by reference court at Patan wherein price of lands of village Brahmanwada was determined at Rs.20.00 per square meter but for aforesaid reason, it was not considered by reference court for determining price of lands of village Ajabpura. Thereafter, reference court considered decision of this court in First Appeal No. 2832 of 2006 to 2843 of 2006 dated 9.7.07 wherein this court has determined price of lands of village Modhera at Rs.41.00. Thereafter, reference court considered decision of this court in First Appeal No. 2832 of 2006 to 2843 of 2006 dated 9.7.07 wherein this court has determined price of lands of village Modhera at Rs.41.00. Thereafter, reference court held that considering distance between village Ajabpura and Brahmanwada and also considering development of Brahmanwada and Ajabpura, earlier decision in respect of lands of village Brahmanpura cannot be taken into consideration and at the same time, decision in respect of village Modhera also cannot be applied in toto keeping in view development of village Modhera and area of village Modhera as against development and area of villagle Ajabpura but thereafter reference court considered that in respect of Modhera decision, in said matter, section 4 notification was published on 27th July, 1995 and price of Rs.41.00 has been determined whereas in respect of present disputed lands, preliminary notification is published on 27th July, 1995, meaning therebynotifications in respect of both village is published on one and same day and therefore, as per principles settled as per decision, price of these lands also would go to Rs.41.00 but thereafter, reference court considered that there is too much difference in development of village Ajabpura and Modhera and held that merely because there is common boundary, said price cannot be taken into consideration but for determining price, price of land, surrounding facilities etc. should be taken into consideration. Reference court considered that applicants have contended that their lands are irrigated lands and witnesses examined for appellants have also admitted that lands of applicants are irrigated lands and therefore, considering all such aspects, reference court determined price of lands under acquisition at Rs.35.00 per square. 10. Here, learned Addl. PP Mr. UA Trivedi submitted that land acquisition officer has determined price of non irrigated land at Rs.2.40 ps. Per square meter and Rs.3.60 for irrigated land but while determining market price of lands under acquisition, reference court has not drawn such distinction between irrigated and non irrigated lands which have been acquired by State of Gujarat and in doing so, reference court has committed gross error and therefore, on that point, interference of this court is warranted. 11. I have considered this particular submission made by learned Addl. GP Mr. Trivedi for appellants. 11. I have considered this particular submission made by learned Addl. GP Mr. Trivedi for appellants. After perusal of award made by reference court at Mehsana, it is appearing that reference court has considered evidence of two witnesses who were examined on behalf of appellants before reference court. Reference court has also considered evidence of claimant Danaji Shankarji Thakor Exh. 13 as well as evidence of Mr. Prajapati at Exh. 24 and Gupta at Exh. 34 for appellants who admitted in their cross exmaination that the lands situated in Ajabpur, acquired by State of Gujarat are having irrigation facility, are being irrigated through private bore and, therefore, three crops per year could be taken from such lands. Reference court has also kept in mind admission of witnesses for appellants that no opinion of agricultural officer and/or expert was obtained as regards fertility of lands in question and therefore, considering evidence of two witnesses examined by appellants before reference court and considering evidence of witness examined on behalf of claimants at Exh. 13 before reference court, as discussed above, that the lands under acquisition are having irrigation facility and there is private bore through which they were being irrigated and three crops in a year were being taken, according to my opinion, reference court has rightly considered potentiality and fertility of lands in question as per evidence of witness for claimants and two witnesses examined by appellants and has rightly not drawn any distinguished land in question as irrigated and non irrigated lands. No evidence was produced by appellants before reference court to show that the lands under acquisition were having no facility of irrigation and no opinion of expert or agricultural officer was obtained and considered by land acquisition officer to that effect and, therefore, according to my opinion, reference court is perfectly justified in not drawing such distinction while deciding matter. Therefore, that contention raised by learned Addl. GP Mr.Trivedi cannot be accepted and same is, therefore, rejected. 12. In light of these facts, order passed by this Court in First Appeal No. 306 of 2008 to 319 of 2008 with First Appeal NO. Therefore, that contention raised by learned Addl. GP Mr.Trivedi cannot be accepted and same is, therefore, rejected. 12. In light of these facts, order passed by this Court in First Appeal No. 306 of 2008 to 319 of 2008 with First Appeal NO. 873 of 2008 to 886 of 2008 dated 7th August, 2008 is required to beconsidered in respect of villagle Ajabpura Taluka Chanasma District Mehsana having section 4 notification dated 6th December, 1995 whereinsame award was passed by Land Acquisition Officer of Rs.2.40 paisa and 3.60 paisa by award dated 16th March, 1998 against reference were made and thereafter, this court has considered award passed by reference court and made following observations in para 6 and 7 : 6. Learned AGP, Ms.Patel submitted that Special Land Acquisition Officer had granted Rs.3.60 for irrigated land and Rs.2.40 for non-irrigated land, inspite of that the Reference Court has by granted Rs.45 in all for both types of lands and thereby a mistake is committed by the Reference Court while passing impugned award. She further submitted that from the observations made in paragraphs 12 and 18, it is clear that the Reference Court has based its order on two previous judgments, Exh.15 and 16 respectively, which are in respect of lands of adjoining village, whereunder market value of the land was fixed at Rs.50/- per sq.mtr. and as Rs.4.57 was granted by Land Acquisition Officer, in all, Rs.54.57 was granted as amount of compensation. In aforesaid cases, appeal was filed before this Honourable Court, wherein this Court has granted in all Rs.43 per sq.mtr. as amount of compensation. Therefore, even relying upon the judgment passed in aforesaid case, amount of compensation is required to be reduced in these appeals. 7. In the aforesaid case Exh.15 and 16, Notification under Section 4 of the Act was published on 9th May 1996 whereas in the present case it was issued on 6th December 1995. Therefore, there is a difference of five months so far as publication of Notification under Section 4 of the Act is concerned. 7. In the aforesaid case Exh.15 and 16, Notification under Section 4 of the Act was published on 9th May 1996 whereas in the present case it was issued on 6th December 1995. Therefore, there is a difference of five months so far as publication of Notification under Section 4 of the Act is concerned. Therefore, decision rendered in the aforesaid case can be relied while deciding present appeals, however, correspondingly 4.16% amount is required to be deducted from the said awarded amount, on the basis of 10% annual growth, as there is a difference of five months' period so far as publication of Notification under Section 4 of the Act is concerned. Therefore, on the basis of aforesaid judgment, upon reducing 4.16% from Rs.43, amount of additional compensation would come to Rs.41.21 ps. However, for the purpose of convenience it is counted as Rs.41/- in all for irrigated land. So far as non-irrigated land is concerned, 33% amount is required to be deducted from said amount of Rs.41, accordingly, it comes to Rs.27.33 per sq.mtr. Therefore, deducting therefrom Rs.3.60 and Rs.2.40 awarded by Land Acquisition Officer, the claimants will be entitled to get Rs.37.61 and Rs.24.93 for irrigated and non-irrigated land respectively, which is rounded off as Rs.38 and Rs.25 respectively. 13. This Court has also considered decision of this court in respect of village Ajabpura in first appeal no. 2071 to 2084 of 2009 dated 12th May,2009. In said matter, section 4 notification is dated 19th March, 1996 and land acquisition officer awarded Rs.3.60 per square meter for irrigated land and Rs.2.40 paisa for non irrigated land vide award dated 31st July, 1998. Relevant observations made by this court in para 8,9 and 10 of said decision are reproduced as under: 8. Learned advocate Mr.Prajapati submitted that this Court has considered same village Ajabpura where the Reference Court has awarded Rs.45/-per sq. mtr. which has been reduced to Rs.37.61 per sq. mtr., round figure comes to Rs.38/- per sq. mtr. for irrigated land and Rs.25/- per sq. mtr. for non-irrigated land. The appeal preferred by the State authority has been dismissed by this Court in FA Nos.306 to 319 of 2008 on 7.8.2008. He also relied upon the discussion made by this Court in Para.3, 6 and 7 which is quoted as under : 3. mtr. for irrigated land and Rs.25/- per sq. mtr. for non-irrigated land. The appeal preferred by the State authority has been dismissed by this Court in FA Nos.306 to 319 of 2008 on 7.8.2008. He also relied upon the discussion made by this Court in Para.3, 6 and 7 which is quoted as under : 3. Land of the original claimant situated in sim of village Ajabpura, Taluka Chanasma, District Patan was proposed to be acquired for the purpose of Narmada Canal Project and Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was published for that purpose on 6-12-1995 whereas the Notification under Section 6 was published on 9-7-1996. In response to the notice the claimants appeared before Special Land Acquisition Officer and prayed for award of compensation at the rate of Rs.50/- per sq.mtr. It was contended by the claimants that their lands are irrigated land and they are taking three crops during the year. After following due procedure, Special Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.2.40 and Rs.3.60 per sq.mtr. by award dated 16-3-1998. 6. Learned AGP, Ms.Patel submitted that Special Land Acquisition Officer had granted Rs.3.60 for irrigated land and Rs.2.40 for non-irrigated land, inspite of that the Reference Court has by granted Rs.45 in all for both types of lands and thereby a mistake is committed by the Reference Court while passing impugned award. She further submitted that from the observations made in paragraphs 12 and 18, it is clear that the Reference Court has based its order on two previous judgments, Exh.15 and 16 respectively, which are in respect of lands of adjoining village, whereunder market value of the land was fixed at Rs.50/- per sq.mtr. and as Rs.4.57 was granted by Land Acquisition Officer, in all, Rs.54.57 was granted as amount of compensation. In aforesaid cases, appeal was filed before this Honourable Court, wherein this Court has granted in all Rs.43 per sq.mtr. as amount of compensation. Therefore, even relying upon the judgment passed in aforesaid case, amount of compensation is required to be reduced in these appeals. 7. In the aforesaid case Exh.15 and 16, Notification under Section 4 of the Act was published on 9th May 1996 whereas in the present case it was issued on 6th December 1995. as amount of compensation. Therefore, even relying upon the judgment passed in aforesaid case, amount of compensation is required to be reduced in these appeals. 7. In the aforesaid case Exh.15 and 16, Notification under Section 4 of the Act was published on 9th May 1996 whereas in the present case it was issued on 6th December 1995. Therefore, there is a difference of five months so far as publication of Notification under Section 4 of the Act is concerned. Therefore, decision rendered in the aforesaid case can be relied while deciding present appeals, however, correspondingly 4.16% amount is required to be deducted from the said awarded amount, on the basis of 10% annual growth, as there is a difference of five months' period so far as publication of Notification under Section 4 of the Act is concerned. Therefore, on the basis of aforesaid judgment, upon reducing 4.16% from Rs.43, amount of additional compensation would come to Rs.41.21 ps. However, for the purpose of convenience it is counted as Rs.41/- in all for irrigated land. So far as non-irrigated land is concerned, 33% amount is required to be deducted from said amount of Rs.41, accordingly, it comes to Rs.27.33 per sq.mtr. Therefore, deducting therefrom Rs.3.60 and Rs.2.40 awarded by Land Acquisition Officer, the claimants will be entitled to get Rs.37.61 and Rs.24.93 for irrigated and non-irrigated land respectively, which is rounded off as Rs.38 and Rs.25 respectively. 9. Similarly, in this case also, the Reference Court has considered the decision given by this Court in FA No.2866 of 2006 with respect to Brahmanvada village and the Division Bench of this Court has fixed the market price at Rs.22/-per sq. mtr. but, that decision has not been relied upon because there is a distance between Brahmanvada and Modhera but Ajabpura village is coming in between those two villages. Therefore, Reference Court has not relied upon the aforesaid decision. Thereafter, Reference Court has considered the award passed in respect to LAR Case No.1156 to 1161 of 2002 dated 22.11.2004 wherein the Division Bench of this Court has fixed the market price at Rs.41/- per sq. mtr. which judgment was produced before the Reference Court vide Exh.31. The Reference Court has also considered that if aforesaid decision is to be considered then claimant is entitled to Rs.45/- per sq. mtr. mtr. which judgment was produced before the Reference Court vide Exh.31. The Reference Court has also considered that if aforesaid decision is to be considered then claimant is entitled to Rs.45/- per sq. mtr. but, there is some difference in between both the villages Ajabpura and Modhera in respect to development, therefore, total amount cannot be taken into account and in light of this fact, there is some difference in respect to potentiality and fertility of the land in respect to village Modhera and Ajabpura, therefore, the Reference Court has considered Rs.35/- per sq. mtr. market price for the land in respect to village Ajabpura. 10. I have considered the reasoning given by Reference Court in its award and also considering the decision relied upon by learned AGP Ms.Manisha Narsinghani for the appellants and also considering the fact that village Brahmanvada and Modhera both are having common boundary and there is some difference in respect to fertility and potentiality of the land in question but, development is also taken in account, therefore, the Reference Court has not awarded Rs.45/- but it has reduced Rs.10/- and then it comes to Rs.35/-, therefore, according to my opinion, the Reference Court has rightly fixed the compensation in respect to village Ajabpura and for that, according to my opinion, the Reference Court has not committed any error which requires interference by this Court. Therefore, the submissions made by learned AGP Ms.Narsinghani cannot be accepted and same are rejected. Therefore, there is no substance in present appeals. Accordingly, present appeals are dismissed. 14. In view of aforesaid decision of this court in respect of same village Ajabpura and considering reasoning given by reference court after appreciating evidence of witness for claimants as well as witnesses for appellants and documentary evidence namely map Exh.29 where it is proved that village Modhera and Ajabpura are having common boundary. However, after considering award in respect of village Modhera, reference court has not awarded Rs.41.00 but reduced it to Rs.35.00 as market price in respect of land in question acquired by appellant and, therefore, contentions raised by learned Addl. GP Mr. UA Trivedi for appellants cannot be accepted. Reference court has given detailed reasons why it is differing with award passed by Special Land Acquisition Officer. GP Mr. UA Trivedi for appellants cannot be accepted. Reference court has given detailed reasons why it is differing with award passed by Special Land Acquisition Officer. Further, from evidence on record, appellants were not able to prove that compensation awarded by Land Acquisition Officer is just, proper and reasonable compensation and requires no interference in reference under sec. 18 of Act. Therefore, reference court has rightly passed impugned award after considering evidence on record and in doing so, according to my opinion, Reference Court has not committed any error which would require interference of this Court, therefore, there is no substance in these appeals. 15. Therefore, in view of aforesaid discussion, these appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs. Decree be drawn accordingly. 16. In view of orders passed by this court in first appeals, no orders are required to be passed in civil applications for stay. Therefore, civil applications for stay are disposed of accordingly.