Judgment H.K. Rathod, J.—Heard learned Advocate Mr. GM Amin on behalf of appellant claimant, learned Add. GP Mr. Trivedi appearing for respondent Spl. Land Acquisition Officer and State of Gujarat. 2. This group of appeals filed by appellant claimant challenging award passed by Reference Court, Ahmedabad District Court at Navrangpura Exhibit 66 in LAR case No. 421/95 to 444/95 decided on 29/11/2001. The Reference Court has partly allowed land reference cases and fixed market price being an additional compensation over and above compensation already awarded by Land Acquisition Officer Rs. 19.40ps in respect to First Appeal No. 714/2007 to 736/2007. In respect to First Appeal No. 982/2007 to 1001/2007 appellant claimant has challenged award passed by Reference Court, Ahmedabad District Court at Navrangpura Exhibit 87 dated 29/11/2001 in Land Acquisition Case No. 1727/1996 to 1749/1996 Exhibit 87, where Reference Court has awarded Rs. 19.40ps being an additional compensation over and above awarded by Land Acquisition Officer. It is necessary to note that in both group of appeals land of village Trasad, Taluka Dholka District Ahmedabad acquired by State Government. 3. In respect to first appeal nos. 714/2007 to 736/2007, this group of appeals filed under Section 54 of Land Acquisition Act read with Section 96 of C.P.C. The lands of appellants situated in seem of village Trasad, Taluka Dholka, District Ahmedabad, which were acquired by Executive Engineer, Narmada Project Dholka Branch Division ?, Gandhinagar for a purpose of Narmada Branch Canal of Sardar Sarovar Dam project. The Section 4 notification is dated 7/8/1991 and Section 6 is dated 13/5/1992. The Land Acquisition Officer has declared award under Section 11 on 30/11/1993. The land Acquisition Officer has awarded compensation of Rs. 1.60ps per sqmt but claimants have demanded Rs. 100/- per sqmt. The Reference Court has awarded being an additional amount of compensation Rs. 19.40ps by award dated 29/11/2001, in all it comes to Rs. 21/- per sqmt. 4. Before Reference Court, claimants have examined one Natvarbhai Chunilal vide Exhibit 52 of LAR case No. 426/95 of block number 182. The claimant appellants have produced various documents i.e. copy of judgment rendered by Second Ex. Assistant and Special Judge (LAQ), Ahmedabad (Rural) at Mirzapur in LAR Case No. 587/95 to 607/95 of village Dholka Exhibit 50. The claimants have also produced copy of judgment dated 30/11/2000 passed by this Court in FA No. 1439/2000 to 1454/2000. The claimant appellants have produced various documents i.e. copy of judgment rendered by Second Ex. Assistant and Special Judge (LAQ), Ahmedabad (Rural) at Mirzapur in LAR Case No. 587/95 to 607/95 of village Dholka Exhibit 50. The claimants have also produced copy of judgment dated 30/11/2000 passed by this Court in FA No. 1439/2000 to 1454/2000. The claimants have further produced certificate issued by Talati - mantri Exhibit 29. The village form Exhibit No. 19 and 27, certificate of Sarkari Mandali Exhibit 18 bills of vegetables Exhibit 28 to 47. The opponents have not examined any witness to prove their case but opponents have produced various documents. The written statement filed by opponents Exhibit 11. The opponents have produced copy of letter written to State Government on 29/10/1992 Exhibit 56. The opponents have also produced valuation note Exhibit 57, information Exhibit 58, note Exhibit 59 and map of village Trasad Exhibit 60. The Reference Court has relied upon judgment and award of Reference Court, Ahmedabad in LAR case No. 587/95 to 607/95 of village Dholka accepted where lands acquired for a purpose of Narmada Canal wherein Section 4 notification was published on 19/9/1991. The Reference Court has awarded additional compensation at the rate of 95.50ps per sqmt which in all comes to Rs. 100/- per sqmt. The judgment and award of Reference Court in respect to village Dholka was confirmed in First Appeal No. 1439/2000 to 1454/2000 Exhibit 51. The judgment of Division Bench of this Court challenged to Apex Court where Apex Court has dismissed SLP (C) No. 4517/2002 to 4532/2002 by order dated 9/7/2002. 5. In respect to First Appeal No. 982/2007 to 1001/2007, this group of appeals are filed under Section 54 of Land Acquisition Act read with Section 96 of CPC. Against judgment and order dated 29/11/2001 passed by Second Ex. Assistant and Special Judge (LAQ), Ahmedabad Rural, District Court at Navarangpur in LAR No. 1727/1996 to 1749/1996. The lands of appellant situated in seem of village Trasad Taluka Dholka, District Ahmedabad where lands were acquired by Executive Engineer, Narmada Project Dholka Branch Division No. ?, Gandhinagar for a purpose of Narmada Brach Canal of Sardar Sarovar Dam Project. The Section 4 notification is dated 15/11/1991 and Section 6 notification is dated 17/8/1992. The Land Acquisition Officer has awarded Rs. 1.60/- per sqmt by its award under Section 11 dated 4/2/1994 but claimants have demanded Rs. The Section 4 notification is dated 15/11/1991 and Section 6 notification is dated 17/8/1992. The Land Acquisition Officer has awarded Rs. 1.60/- per sqmt by its award under Section 11 dated 4/2/1994 but claimants have demanded Rs. 100/- per sqmt. The Reference Court has awarded Rs. 19.40ps total comes to Rs. 21/-. Before Reference Court one Khodabhai was examined by claimant by Exhibit 52 of LAR case No. 1729/1996 block No. 555. The certain documents are also produced on record by claimants before Reference Court. The copy of award passed by Reference Court, Ahmedabad in LAR case No. 587/95 to 607/95 village Dholka. The claimant has also produced copy of order passed by this Court in First Appeal No. 1439/2000 to 1454/2000 dated 30/11/2000. The claimants have further produced certificate issued by Talati vide Exhibit 29. The village form Exhibit 19 and 27, certificate of Sarkari Mandali Exhibit 18, bills of vegetables Exhibit 21 to 47 produced. The opponents have not examined any witness to prove their case but certain documents have been produced on record. The opponents have filed written statement vide Exhibit 11 and produced copy of letter written to State Government on 29/10/1992 Exhibit 56. The opponents have also produced valuation note Exhibit 57, information Exhibit 58, note Exhibit 59, map of village Trasad Exhibit 60. 6. The Reference Court has relied upon award passed by Reference Court Exhibit 50 in LAR case No. 587/95 to 607/95 of village Dholka where lands were acquired for a purpose of Narmada Canal wherein Section 4 notification was published on 19/9/1991. The Reference Court has awarded additional compensation at the rate of Rs. 95.50ps per sqmt, in all comes to Rs. 100/- per sqmt. The judgment of Reference Court has been confirmed in First Appeal No. 1439/2000 to 1454/2000 at Exhibit 51 which judgment has been challenged before Apex Court in SLP (C) No. 4517/2002 to 4532/2002 has been dismissed by Apex Court by order dated 9/7/2002. 7. The appellant claimants have produced paper book of both cases before this Court. It is necessary to note that this Court has considered paper books produced by claimants in respect to both groups and also perused award passed by Reference Court in both group. In both groups award is passed by Reference Court in respect to village Trasad on 29/11/2001 giving Rs. 19.40ps market price in all it comes to Rs. It is necessary to note that this Court has considered paper books produced by claimants in respect to both groups and also perused award passed by Reference Court in both group. In both groups award is passed by Reference Court in respect to village Trasad on 29/11/2001 giving Rs. 19.40ps market price in all it comes to Rs. 21/- and claimants relied upon award passed by Reference Court which is confirmed by Apex Court where Rs. 100/- per sqmt awarded by Reference Court. 8. Learned Advocate Mr. Anim submitted that village Dholka is nearby to Trasad village and village Dholka is comparable adjoining village to Trasad, but Reference Court has not considered award passed by Reference Court in respect to village Dholka and committed error, though Reference Court in terms come to conclusion that both villages, Dholka and Trasad can be compared with each other so far as fertility and agriculture produce concerned. Therefore, in all this way, it can be easily believed that agricultural land of village Trasad and Dholka are of similar nature and as both villages are just adjoining to each other, based on previous award can be taken, even though, Reference Court has considered matter in a manner bifurcating land as commercial aspect of land of Dholka. The village Dholka being a taluka place and sale deed produced by claimant in respect to village Dholka which having more facility near to National Highway and village Trasad being small one, not awarded same amount of Rs. 100/- in favour of claimants. He submitted that no reason is given why Reference Court has diverted from award of Dholka village. He submitted that Section 4 notification in case of village Trasad is 7/8/1991 and in case of village Dholka 19/9/1991, almost about 1? months difference is there and both lands of village have been acquired for same purpose, even though, previous award in respect to village Dholka not considered by Reference Court which is a clear error committed by Reference Court, for that, present appeals are filed by claimants. 9. He relied upon one decision of Apex Court in case of Thakarsibhai Devjibhai and Ors. vs. Executive Engineer, Gujarat and Ors. reported in AIR 2001 SC 2424 , relevant discussion made in Para 12 is quoted as under: “12. As we have said above the High Court fell into error by reducing the quantum of compensation on this basis. 9. He relied upon one decision of Apex Court in case of Thakarsibhai Devjibhai and Ors. vs. Executive Engineer, Gujarat and Ors. reported in AIR 2001 SC 2424 , relevant discussion made in Para 12 is quoted as under: “12. As we have said above the High Court fell into error by reducing the quantum of compensation on this basis. The reduction has been made for two reasons, one that the present acquisition is of larger area and the second the distance between the land under acquisition and Ex. 16 is about 5 Kms. With reference to question of acquisition being of a larger area, the error is, when we scan we find for the acquisition of each land owner, it could not be said that the acquisition is of a larger area. Largeness is merely when each land holders land is clubbed together then the area becomes large. Each landowners holdings are of small area. Even otherwise visioning in the line with submission for the State we find Ex. 16 is about tow hectares of land which can not be said to be small piece of land. 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. However, distance between the land under Ex. 16 and the present land even if they are 5 kms, apart would not be relevant, the relevancy could be, their distances from the Viramgam town. We find, as per map produced by the state the present acquired land is about 3 Kms away from it, while the land under Ex. 16 is about two kilometers away from it. This difference is not such to lead to reduce the rate of compensation, specially on the facts of this case. In the present case, as we have recorded above, it has been found that the quality including potentiality of land between Exhibit 16 and the present one are similar. No evidence has been led on behalf of the State to find difference between the two. In view of this, the interference drawn by the High Court for reducing the compensation by Rs. 10/- per sq. mtr. can not be sustained.” 10. No evidence has been led on behalf of the State to find difference between the two. In view of this, the interference drawn by the High Court for reducing the compensation by Rs. 10/- per sq. mtr. can not be sustained.” 10. He also submitted that map which was produced before Reference Court also suggested that Trasad village is nearby village Dholka. The village Trasad is situated on Dholka - Bavla State High way and village Trasad is having various facility like telephone, light, water, milk society, panchayat house, health center, post office. The village Trasad is only two kilometer away from village Dholka. Looking to map learned Advocate Mr. Amin submitted that Trasad and Dholka are adjoining lands and purpose of acquisition was also same. 11. He submitted that in village Trasad there was sufficient evidence on record produced by claimants that in village Trasad farmers are taking three different crops in a year and after deducting agricultural expenses they are earning minimum Rs. 30,000/- per vigha in a year and also all acquired lands are equal in fertility and nature and farmers were cultivating scientifically and simada of Dholka is adjoining to acquired land of village Trasad. The last survey number of Dholka and first survey number of village Trasad are acquired for same purpose and to prove this fact they have produced copy of certificate issued by Talati vide Exhibit 29. But without giving any reason only because of village Dholka being a big Taluka comparison to village Trasad not considered previous award for awarding compensation of Rs. 100/- in favour of claimant. The above referred submissions made by learned Advocate Mr. Amin in respect to both group of appeals having identical facts and circumstances. 12. Learned Advocate Mr. Amin appearing on behalf of appellant claimants submitted that claimants are entitled interest on aggregate amount under Section 23 of Land Acquisition Act to reach hands of person as and when award is passed at any rate as soon as he is deprived all possession of his land. He relied upon one decision in case of Sunder vs. Union of India reported in 2001 (6) Scale 405 , relevant discussion made in Para 23 and 24 are quoted as under: “23. He relied upon one decision in case of Sunder vs. Union of India reported in 2001 (6) Scale 405 , relevant discussion made in Para 23 and 24 are quoted as under: “23. In deciding the question as to what amount would bear interest under Section 34 of the Act a peep into Section 31(1) of the Act would be advantageous. That sub Section says: “On making an award under Section 11, the Collector shall tender payment of the compensation awarded by him to the persons interested entitled thereto according to the award, and shall pay it to them unless prevented by some one or more of the contingencies mentioned in the next subsection.” The remaining sub-sections in that provision only deal with the contingencies in which the Collector has to deposit the amount instead of paying it to the party concerned. It is legal obligation of the Collector to pay “the compensation awarded by him” to the party entitled thereto. We make it clear that the compensation awarded would include not only the total sum arrived at as per sub Section (1) of Section 23 but the remaining sub Section thereof as well. It is thus clear from Section 34 that the expression “awarded amount” would mean the amount of compensation worked out in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 23, including all the sub sections thereof. 24. The proviso to Section 34 of the Act makes the position further clear. The proviso says that “if such compensation” is not paid within one year from the date of taking possession of the land, interest shall stand escalated to 15% per annum from the date of expiry of the said period of one year “on the amount of compensation or part thereof which has not been paid or deposited before the date of such expiry”. It is inconceivable that the solatium amount would attract only the escalated rate of interest from the expiry of one year and that there would be no interest on solatium during the preceding period. What the legislature intended was to make to aggregate amount under Section 23 of the Act to reach the hands of the person as and when the award is passed, at any rate as soon as he is deprived of the possession of his land. What the legislature intended was to make to aggregate amount under Section 23 of the Act to reach the hands of the person as and when the award is passed, at any rate as soon as he is deprived of the possession of his land. Any delay in making payment of the said sum should enable the party to have interest on the said sum until he receives the payment. Splitting up the compensation into different components for the purpose of payment of interest under Section 34 was not in the contemplation of the legislature when that Section was framed or enacted.” 13. Learned Add. GP Mr. Trivedi relied upon one decision of Apex Court in case of V. Hanumantha Reddy vs. Land Acquisition Officer and Mandal R. Officer, reported in AIR 2004 SC 1185 , relevant Paras 6 and 7 are quoted as under: “6. The High Court, in our view, therefore, was right in taking the sale instances of Exhibits A - 7, A - 8, A -10 and A -11 at the rate of Rs. 45/- per square yard, as the basis for the determination of market value of the acquired land. After making 1/3rd deduction on account of lying out of roads and for other development purposes, the High Court has worked out the value of the acquired land at Rs. 30/- per square yard. In the facts and circumstances stated above we do not find any infirmity in the conclusion reached at by High Court. 7. It is contended by Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants that the land so acquired has high potentialities. The National Highway No. 7 is being intervened by the petrol bunk and the premises of the State Bank of India. There are houses, shops and hotels on the north, south and west of the acquired land. The developmental activities are towards Kurnool where the land at Survey No. 386 has been acquired. The learned Senior counsel, therefore, urged that the sale instances relied upon by the Reference Court ought not to have been disturbed by the High Court. We are unable to sustain this submission of the counsel. The land may be having high potentialities or it may be proximate to the developed land, but that itself would be no ground for not deducting the development charges. We are unable to sustain this submission of the counsel. The land may be having high potentialities or it may be proximate to the developed land, but that itself would be no ground for not deducting the development charges. This Court in a recent judgment reported in Kasturi and Others vs. State of Haryana (2003) 1 SCC 354 , held that it is well settled that in respect of agricultural land or undeveloped land which has potential value for house or commercial purposes, normally 1/3rd amount of compensation has to be deducted out of the amount of compensation payable on the acquired land subject to certain variations depending on its nature, locations, extent of expenditure involved for development and the are required for roads and other civic amenities to develop the land as to make the plots for residential or commercial purposes. This Court also pointed out that there is difference between a developed area and an area having potential value, which is yet to be developed. It was further pointed out that the land is developed or adjacent to a developed area will not ipso facto make every land situated in the area also developed to be valued as a building site or plot. The facts of the present case are exactly the same as the situation in which this Court has made the above observation. In the present case, the undisputed facts on record would show that the acquired land with National Highway No. 7 is intervened by a petrol bunk and the premises of the State Bank of India. There are also houses, shops and hotels on the north, south and west of the acquired land. The acquired land is also about 100 yards away from the National Highway No. 7. No doubt, the acquired land may be having high potential value but that itself per se can not be claimed to be developed land. Lost of development activities are to be undertaken like lying of roads, sewerage facility, water supply etc. so that the land would be made fit for construction of houses for the needy people, which would require enormous amount of expenditure.” 14. Relying upon above referred decision of Apex Court he submitted that potentiality and fertility of land in question of both villages are different. so that the land would be made fit for construction of houses for the needy people, which would require enormous amount of expenditure.” 14. Relying upon above referred decision of Apex Court he submitted that potentiality and fertility of land in question of both villages are different. He also submitted that village Dholka is having separate entity being Taluka place can not be compared with small village Trasad. He submitted that in Trasad there is no railway facility available and village Dholka is developed taluka place having all type of infrastructure and population of said taluka is also high in comparison to village Trasad. The costs of land of Dholka city was considered as high keeping in mind different previous sale deeds for land of market yard which was purchased by Bavla Market Committee and in that judgment keeping in mind commercial purpose and sale instances of land for commercial purpose it was considered and thereafter ultimately basing on said sale instances rate was fixed by Reference Court in previous award, therefore, lands of village Trasad can be comparable with each other but for that base can not be taken because both are on different footing. 15. He submitted that acquired lands may be having high potentiality or it may be proximity to develop city but that itself would be no ground for not taking development charges. Therefore, learned Add. GP Mr. Trivedi submitted that relying upon decision of Apex Court reported in AIR 2004 SC 1185 that village Dholka being big place of taluka and having all infrastructure and facility available attached to National high way having high potentiality value can not be compared with village Trasad. 16. I have considered submission made by both learned advocates and I have also perused paper books being supplied to this Court in respect to both group of appeals and also perused award passed by Reference Court in both group of appeals. The question is that whether Reference Court in both group of cases has rightly ignored award passed by Reference court in respect to village Dholka or not? and whether any justification is given by Reference Court from previous award of village Dholka or not? The relevant observation made by Reference Court in group of LAR case No. 421/1995 to 444/1995 where in Para 11 undisputed facts are noted, therefore, quoted as under: “11. I have heard the argument of ld. and whether any justification is given by Reference Court from previous award of village Dholka or not? The relevant observation made by Reference Court in group of LAR case No. 421/1995 to 444/1995 where in Para 11 undisputed facts are noted, therefore, quoted as under: “11. I have heard the argument of ld. Advocate for the applicant at length and also heard the argument of the ld. Advocate for the opponents. I have also carefully gone through the pleadings and evidence on record. On scrutinizing the contents of the pleading and evidence adduced by the parties and documentary evidence produced on record, it appears that the following facts are not in dispute between parties. 1. The claimants were the owners of the agricultural land acquired by the State Government. 2. The land in question are situated in the seem of village Trasad Tal. Dholka District Ahmedabad. 3. The State Government has acquired the land for public purpose i.e. for the construction of Narmada Canal of Sardar Sarovar Project. 4. The State Government had published the notification under Section 4 on 7/8/91 and under Section on 13/5/92. 5. The owners as well as interested persons were served with the notices under Section 9 of the Act by L. A. Q. 6. The L. A. O. has fixed the value of the land for the compensation at Rs. 1.60 per square meter by his award dated 30/11/1993. 7. The claimants had filed their objection against it and requested to refer the case U/s. 18 of the L. A. Act. 8. This Court has jurisdiction to entertain the present reference.” 17. The view taken by Apex Court which has been relied by Reference Court in Para 14 in case of State of Madras vs. A. M. Nangan and Others reported in 1976 SCC 473, where it is held that award passed by competent Court if comparable would be relevant for fixation of compensation and even if their award relates to land in nearby area or tune can be considered as comparable having regards to reasonable proximity. The relevant discussion made by Reference Court in Para 18 to 20 and 22 and 23 are quoted as under: “18. I have heard the Ld. Advocate for the parties and taken into consideration the documentary as well as oral evidence as discussed hereinabove, adduced by the parties on record. The relevant discussion made by Reference Court in Para 18 to 20 and 22 and 23 are quoted as under: “18. I have heard the Ld. Advocate for the parties and taken into consideration the documentary as well as oral evidence as discussed hereinabove, adduced by the parties on record. Now, on scrutinizing both the documentary as well as oral evidence, it seems that in this case the claimants have not based their claim for enhance compensation either on sale instances or on yield method but they have relied upon the previous awards of the Court relating to similar lands. The evidence on record indicates that the lands acquired were even and irrigated. Village Trasad is situated 2 km away from Dholka and it is also situated on the State highway. From the evidence on record, it also transpires that the said village is having all types of facilities. 19. The opponents has also produced on map of village Trasad vide Exh. 60. On perusal of both the map it clearly transpires that the Simada of Dholka and Rampur are adjoining to village Trasad and from village Trasad the road towards Bhavnagar is passing but nearby Trasad there is no railway. The applicants himself has also stated in his examination that Dholka is two kilometer away and his fact is not denied by the opponents. Thus the maps produced on record clearly reflects that Dholka is adjoining to village Trasad and it is at the distance of 2 km away but at the same time it is also required to be considered that Dholka is a Taluka and it is a big developed Taluka place and having all types of infrastructure and the population of the said Taluka is also high in comparision to village Trasad. Dholka is developed city and the land which was acquired earlier for Dholka, the purpose of acquisition though the same but at the time of passing the award by the Court, the cost of land of Dholka city was considered as high keeping in mind the different previous sale deeds for the land of market yard which was purchased by the Bavla Market committee and in that judgment keeping in mind the commercial purpose and the sale instances of the land for commercial purpose it was considered and thereafter ultimately basing on the said sale instances the rate was fixed by my learned Predecessor and the said judgment is also confirmed by the Hon’ble High Court. But herein this case the land which is acquired for the Canal purpose from village Trasad is concerned, Trasad is a small village and it is connected with Bhavnagar Highway and therefore in my view the acquisition of the land of Dholka and the acquisition of the land of village Trasad can be compared with each other but fulls base can not be taken because both are on different footing. Trasad is a village while the Dholka is Taluka place and therefore in absence of another method, the base of the award of Dholka can be taken and it is some what why comparable having regards to the above stated cause. Thus both Dholka and Trasad can be compared with each other so far as the fertility and agricultural produces concerned and therefore in all this way it can be easily believed that the agricultural land of village Trasad and Dholka are of similar nature and as they are adjoining to each other and both the villages are just adjoining to each other the base of previous award can be taken but at the same time as discussed hereinabove, the commercial aspect of the land of Dholka can be also taken. While in Trasad it is not so. Further more from the record it also transpires that the village Trasad has got the various facilities like the primary school, secondary school, cooperative society, milk society, Panchayat house, ST bus facility. While in Trasad it is not so. Further more from the record it also transpires that the village Trasad has got the various facilities like the primary school, secondary school, cooperative society, milk society, Panchayat house, ST bus facility. Thus in that way from all the documents produced on record and also considering the oral evidence of the witnesses discussed hereinabove it transpires that fertility and yield of agricultural land of Dholka and Trasad though the same but the commercial value of the Dholka can not be ignored. The applicants have also produced the copy of village form No. 7/12 vide Exh. 19 to 27 and they have also produced certificate given by Secretary, Trasad Milk Society in which it is stated that there are so many members in the society and society is working since long. Thus considering the land of village Dholka as of same yield so far as the agricultural produces concerned and therefore the applicants have relied upon the previous award relating to the land of Dholka and therefore it is for this Court to find out whether they are relevant for the purpose of asserting the market value of the land acquired in the instance case. 20. Exh. 50 is the award of reference Court rendered on 25/1/2000 in L. A. No. 587/95. It indicates that various survey number of Dholka Distt. Ahmedabad was acquired pursuant to publication of Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act in the official Gazette on 19/9/91 for the purpose of Narmada Project Branch Canal. In that case the claimants had claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 200/- per square meter but the Land Acquisition Officer by his award dated 4/5/94 had offer compensation at the rate of Rs. 4.50 per square meter. Feeling aggrieved by the said offer of compensation, the claimants had sought reference and the reference Court after taking into consideration the evidence adduced before it including the previous award, held that the claimants were entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs. 95.50 per square meter for their agricultural land which means that in all Rs. 100/- per square meter for their agricultural land. But on perusal of the said judgment it also transpires that at the passing of the said award this Court had considered the various sale deeds of Non Agricultural Land and thereafter the compensation was fixed. 22. 95.50 per square meter for their agricultural land which means that in all Rs. 100/- per square meter for their agricultural land. But on perusal of the said judgment it also transpires that at the passing of the said award this Court had considered the various sale deeds of Non Agricultural Land and thereafter the compensation was fixed. 22. Thus, the evidence on record indicates that the lands which were subject matter of the previous award of Dholka, as discussed hereinabove, are in the vicinity and in reasonable proximity to the lands acquired in the present case. As observed earlier, a fertility and yield is also similar. At that time, of acquisition of the value of the land of village Trasad, certain points are required to be taken into consideration. It is also clear that Dholka is big developed town having all types of infrastructure, industrialization and high population while Trasad is very small town and there is no industrial development in village Trasad and even nearby village Trasad no railway line is passing and therefore future prospects and developments is also less as compared to Dholka. 23. The ld. Advocate for the opponent has submitted that while determining the market value of the lands which were acquired from village Dholka the Reference Court had taken into consideration the potential value and the value of the land in reference to non agricultural use and at the time the Court had taken into consideration the different various sale deed of the market yard and thereafter the market price was fixed. While hereinthis case village Trasad is a small village and therefore total base can not be taken into consideration. He has also submitted that even in judgment of Jalalpur the Hon’ble Tribunal had awarded Rs. 24.50 per square meter which village is just adjoining to Trasad and therefore also this judgment can not be taken as base. But I do not totally agree with submission made by the Ld. Advocate for the otherside because the opponent has not produced the certified copy of the judgment of Jalalpur and therefore in absence of this evidence this Court has to scrutinize the evidence adduced by the parties on record. It is very clear that there is clear evidence on record that both the village Trasad and Dholka is are on equal footing. Dholka is taluka place while Trasad is a small village. It is very clear that there is clear evidence on record that both the village Trasad and Dholka is are on equal footing. Dholka is taluka place while Trasad is a small village. Now from the record it clearly infers that the land of Dholka were acquired in purusant to the publication of Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act on 19/9/91 and the compensation payable was determined by the Reference Court at the rate of Rs. 95.50 per square meter as an additional compensation. While in the present case, the land of village Trasad were acquired I pursuant to the notification under Section 4 of the Act dated 7/8/91 and therefore it seems that there is no gape between the two notification. Further more it appears from the award that the compensation awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer is highly inadequate. Thus looking to the locations of the acquired land, its fertility, the purpose for which the lands are acquired, the date of publication of notification under Section 4 and the Judgment passed by the Reference Court in other Reference cases of village Dholka. I assess the market value of the land in question at the rate of Rs. 21.00 per square meter. Thus looking to all these aspect and also considering the judgment produced on record and considering the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Land Acquisition Officer G.I.D.C. Ahmedabad vs. Juamkuben K. Sodha reported in 1992 (1) GLH Page 417 where the Hon’ble High Court has enlightened on the point that “the main anxiety of the Authority or the Court should be to ascertain and find out the fair and just amount of value of the land under acquisition.” The mandate of Section 23 of the Act is to see that the affected person in an acquisition proceeding is placed in the same position, as far as possible as he would have been, had there been no acquisition. Thus, according to my opinion, the fair and just amount of Rs. 19.40 per square meter as additional compensation should be awarded and hence I answer issue No. 1 and 2 accordingly.” 18. Thus, according to my opinion, the fair and just amount of Rs. 19.40 per square meter as additional compensation should be awarded and hence I answer issue No. 1 and 2 accordingly.” 18. In above referred Para Reference Court has discussed submission made by both lawyer on behalf of respective parties and also come to conclusion after appreciating evidence on record “it is very clear that there is a clear evidence on record that both villages Dholka and Trasad are on equal footing”. In respect to village Dholka Section 4 notification is dated 19/9/1991 and village Trasad Section 4 notification is published on 7/8/1991. The following observation made by Reference Court “therefore, it seems that there is no gap between two notification further more it appears from award that compensation awarded by Special Land Acquisition Officer is contrary inadequate.” The Reference Court has taken into consideration potential value and value of land in respect to non agricultural use and at that time, Court has taken into consideration different values, sale deed of market yard and thereafter market price was fixed in respect to village Dholka. It is necessary to note that in respect to village Dholka and Trasad, lands in question acquired by state authority of agriculture land but merely village Dholka, same sale deed of market yard in respect to non agriculture used because it is near to National Highway, that can not consider to be different yardstick for determining market price as per previous award of village Dholka. So merely on this reason, Reference Court has not given same market price to appellant claimant of village Trasad. In all potentiality, fertility, utility as well as location of acquired land of both villages, no gap between Section 4 notification in respect to both villages and fertility and yield is also similar, facility in respect to both villages are same, except that taluka place is having big develop town, all types of infrastructure and industrialization and high population can not consider to be ignored for determining market price of adjoining village Trasad. At the most, decision which has been relied by learned Add. GP Mr. At the most, decision which has been relied by learned Add. GP Mr. Trivedi reported in AIR 2004 SC 1185 where Apex Court has considered that in such case development charges is to be deducted for undeveloped village in comparison to developed village Dholka but award of village Dholka can not be ignored for determining market price of village Trasad. 19. The Reference Court has not given any cogent reason for not to accept award passed in respect to village Dholka. Just Reference Court has discussed it but denying benefits to appellant without any justification. Therefore, according to my opinion, considering Rs. 21/- for village Trasad and considering Rs. 100/- for village Dholka as fixed by Reference Court being market price if development charges is to be deducted because Trasad village is not developed in comparison to village Dholka and not having specific infrastructure and industrialization and high population then some percentage of development charge can be considered to be deducted then it will meet end of justice between parties. While deciding and examining award passed in respect to village Dholka, this Court in order dated 30/11/2000 has considered one decision of Division Bench of this Court in FA No. 1439/2000 to 1454/2000 dated 30/11/2000, where suggested to deduct 25% of sale price reflected in relevant documents or 33% would be justified, relevant Para 7, 7/1 to 7/4 are quoted as under: “7. That leads us to the consideration of the main piece of evidence upon which the Reference Court has relied upon. This is a sale deed at Ex. 16, executed on 7th December 1988. It reflects a market value of Rs. 133/- per square meter. The Reference Court took note of the fact that this sale pertains to non agricultural land, whereas the acquired lands are agricultural lands. However, since on sale instances pertaining to agricultural land are on record, the Reference Court was obliged to consider whether such a sale could be taken into consideration or not. 7.1 In this context the Reference Court found, and in our opinion rightly so, that it is by now well settled that such sale instances can be taken into consideration, provided due allowances is made for this actual distinction. 7.1 In this context the Reference Court found, and in our opinion rightly so, that it is by now well settled that such sale instances can be taken into consideration, provided due allowances is made for this actual distinction. 7.2 This Court in the case of State of Gujarat vs. Abdul Nurbhai Mansuri, in First Appeal No. 1598/88, decide don 26th March 1999, held that under these circumstances the Reference Court can rely upon a sale deed, dealing with non agricultural land, and for the purpose of arriving at the market value in respect of agricultural lands, a deduction of 25% of the sale price reflected in the relevant document would both be justified as also appropriate. 7.3 A similar view has been expressed by the Supreme Court in the case of Rampiari Vs. Land Acquisition Collector, Solan, reported at AIR 1996 SC 3140 , wherein while comparing the price reflected in a document dealing with developed land, for the purpose of determination of market value of non developed land, it was held that a deduction on account of development charges at the rate of 33% would be justifiable. 7.4 On the basis of the aforesaid principles the Reference Court relied upon Exhibit 16 and deducted 25% from the sale price of Rs. 133/- per square meter reflected by the said document. By making such deduction the Reference Court arrived at a figure of Rs. 100/- per square meter which it declared to be appropriate market value in respect of the acquired lands. The Reference Court thereafter granted other statutory allowances on the basis of this matter value.” 20. In view of that observation made by Division Bench of this Court while confirming award passed in respect of village Dholka and considering development charges to be deducted 25% or 33%, if that has to be applied while keeping in mind as observation made by Apex Court reported in AIR 2004 SC 1185 , according to my opinion, from Rs. 100/- if it is reduced to 25% or 33%, then instead of Rs. 19.40ps considering amount awarded by Reference Court and awarded by Spl. Land Acquisition Officer total comes to Rs. 21/-, is to be enhanced upto Rs. 70 instead of Rs. 100 being a market price or total compensation per sqmt, which consider to be reasonable amount fixed as market price of land in question acquired for village Trasad. 21. 19.40ps considering amount awarded by Reference Court and awarded by Spl. Land Acquisition Officer total comes to Rs. 21/-, is to be enhanced upto Rs. 70 instead of Rs. 100 being a market price or total compensation per sqmt, which consider to be reasonable amount fixed as market price of land in question acquired for village Trasad. 21. Therefore, appellant claimant is entitled Rs. 70/- per sqmt being market price for land in question acquired of claimant by State in respect to both group of appeals and award passed by Reference Court instead of Rs. 21/- which total awarded as compensation by Reference Court in both group of cases with all other consequential benefits as directed by Reference Court in both group of appeals which remained in tact. 22. Accordingly, first appeals filed by appellant claimant in both group of appeals are partly allowed and award passed by Reference Court in both LAR cases, accordingly modified and claimants appellants are entitled Rs. 70/- being market price of lands in question acquired by State after deducting development charges from Rs. 100/- which awarded by Reference Court in respect to village Dholka in previous award. 23. The respondents State and Land Acquisition officers are directed to deposit enhance amount with all consequential benefits including interest upon aggregate amount under Section 23 of Land Acquisition Act as directed by Reference Court in award dated 29/11/2001 in respect to both group of villages Trasad within a period of two months from date of receiving copy of this order. As and when respondent will deposit said amounts before Reference Court, Ahmedabad in respect to both group of appeals, Reference Court, Ahmedabad is directed to pay amount of compensation by A/c payee cheque in name of each appellant claimants after proper verification. 24. Accordingly, decree is to be drawn in both group of appeals immediately. P P P P P