JUDGMENT : K.M. Thaker, J. In present group of appeals, District Panchayat, Mehsana is the appellant (hereinafter referred to as the "appellant Panchayat"). The appellant-Panchayat has preferred present appeals against the award dated 23.02.1995 passed by the 2nd Joint District Judge, Mehsana in Land Reference Cases Nos. 234/1990 to 251/1990 whereby the learned Reference Court has directed the original opponents i.e. State of Gujarat/appellant-Panchayat to pay compensation at the rate of Rs.105/ per sqr. mtr. along with statutory benefits. Aggrieved by the said directions, the appellant-Panchayat has preferred above mentioned appeals. 2. The facts giving rise to present appeals can be summarised as follows. 3. For the purpose of laying down UnjhaVadnagarLadol Road in District Mehsana, certain parcels of lands were required. Hence, for the said public purpose, a Notification contemplated under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") came to be issued on 11th June, 1981, which was followed by Section 6 Notification dated 20.03.1982. The acquisition proceedings in pursuant to the Notification were carried out and after completing necessary procedure and formalities, the Land Acquisition Officer passed award, contemplated under Section 11 on 25th March, 1983. The original claimants appear to have alleged that any intimation about declaration of the award was not served and any notice contemplated under Section 12(2) of the Act was also not served and that the original claimants did not know anything about the award i.e. either about its declaration or its contents. They also claimed that when they came to know about the details of the award, it was noticed that the compensation awarded by Section 11 award was very meager and inadequate. The original claimants believed that in view of the quality, location and potential of their lands, they were entitled to compensation at least at the rate of Rs.200/ per sqr. mtrs. The claimants therefore, submitted application/s to the Competent Authority and sought reference under Section 18. The Competent Authority made orders of reference which culminated into above mentioned Land Reference Cases Nos. 234/1990 to 251/1990. Before the learned Reference Court, the claimants assailed the award as inadequate, unjust and unreasonable. The claimants contended that the market value for the lands in question ought to have been fixed at least at Rs.200/ per sqr. mtrs. and compensation should have been awarded accordingly. 234/1990 to 251/1990. Before the learned Reference Court, the claimants assailed the award as inadequate, unjust and unreasonable. The claimants contended that the market value for the lands in question ought to have been fixed at least at Rs.200/ per sqr. mtrs. and compensation should have been awarded accordingly. 3.1 The claims were resisted by the appellantPanchayat and the State and it was contended that the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer was just and reasonable and based on cogent and relevant material. The opponents contended that the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer was adequate and objections were unjust. The opponents also contended that the claim made by the land owners was exaggerated. 4. The learned Reference Court framed two main issues viz. (a) whether compensation awarded by LAO is inadequate; and (b) if yes, what amount should be paid as additional compensation. Upon taking the material on record, the learned Reference Court replied the first issue in affirmative and as regards the second issue Reference Court declared that additional compensation should be Rs.105/ per sqr. mtrs. The learned Judge made the award accordingly. 5. The learned Reference Court has declared and directed that: "It is hereby declared that opponent State of Gujarat do pay amount of compensation at the rate of Rs.105/ (One hundred five) per sq.m. for the land acquired with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of taking possession for the first year and thereafter at the rate of 15% p.a. till realisation of the said amount. Opponent State of Gujarat do pay the additional amount of compensation at the rate of 12% for the period from the date of notification u/s. 4 of the Act till the date of award i.e. for 21 months according to provisions of Section 23(1A) of L.A. Act. Opponent State of Gujarat do pay the amount of solatium at the rate of 30% on the amount of compensation. The amount already awarded to the claimants be deducted from the amount payable to the claimants. The amount of compensation awarded to the claimants is more particularly described in the schedule attached with the award which would be part of this award. The amount already awarded to the claimants be deducted from the amount payable to the claimants. The amount of compensation awarded to the claimants is more particularly described in the schedule attached with the award which would be part of this award. The opponents shall also pay the interest on the amount of additional compensation awarded under section 23(1A) of the Act and solatium stated above at the rate of 9% per annum for the period of first year and thereafter at the rate of 15% per annum till realisation of the said amount. The opponent shall also pay the proportionate costs to the claimants and shall bear its own." 6. Mr. Panchal, learned advocate has appeared for the appellant-Panchayat, Mr. B.S. Patel, learned advocate has appeared for the claimants opponents. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 6.1. Mr. Panchal has assailed the impugned judgment and has submitted that the impugned decision and direction by the learned Reference Court are unjustified, contrary to evidence on record and unsustainable in facts and law. He submitted that the learned Court has erred in relying on the earlier award made by the Reference Court and has also erred in making the said earlier award the base for determining the market value of the acquired lands in present case. He further submitted that the learned Court ought not to have accepted the said earlier award as the base and acceptable or reliable guidelines for determining market value of the lands acquired in present case. He submitted that the learned Court has not considered relevant factors like location of lands and/or comparability i.e. quality of lands in question and without examining the said and such other relevant factors, the learned Reference Court ought not to have relied upon the said award. He submitted that the award, deserves to be set aside. Any other ground against the award has not been canvassed. 7. Per contra, Mr. Patel, learned advocate has submitted that the claimants had produced sufficient evidence to establish the comparability of lands in question visavis the lands in respect of which the earlier award was passed. He submitted that the claimants had established that the land in both sets of cases were adjoining or very close and almost adjoining. 7. Per contra, Mr. Patel, learned advocate has submitted that the claimants had produced sufficient evidence to establish the comparability of lands in question visavis the lands in respect of which the earlier award was passed. He submitted that the claimants had established that the land in both sets of cases were adjoining or very close and almost adjoining. He also submitted that the claimants had not only established the proximity/location of lands in both sets of cases but had also satisfactorily and conclusively established comparability of lands in both cases. He referred to the detailed discussion in the award by the Reference Court with regard to the said two factors. He submitted that the learned Reference Court relied upon the earlier award after closely considering all relevant factors and not mechanically, as alleged by the appellant. He was also quite anxious to add that the earlier award was challenged in the High Court and the High Court has, after carefully examining all relevant aspects and the material on record, confirmed the said earlier award by judgment and order dated 06.11.2009. He submitted that since the award has been, after due consideration, confirmed by the High Court, the objection by the appellant do not hold any merits and it cannot be said that the Reference Court, in present case, erred in relying on the said award. 8. Before proceeding further it deserves to be mentioned that against the same award the opponentState of Gujarat has also preferred separate appeals and challenged the determination of market value/additional compensation determined by the learned Reference Court by the impugned award. However, the said appeals are not listed for hearing with these appeals. 9. It is also necessary to mention at this stage that present group of appeals against the common award dated 23.02.1995 in the above mentioned Land Reference Cases, was admitted by the Court by order dated 29.11.1995. Then, recently i.e. on or around 5th April, 2010, some of the opponents original claimants circulated an application stating, interalia, that in respect of acquisition of certain other parcels of land situate in the same village, orders of reference were made at the instance of the concerned land owners, which culminated into Land Reference Cases Nos. Then, recently i.e. on or around 5th April, 2010, some of the opponents original claimants circulated an application stating, interalia, that in respect of acquisition of certain other parcels of land situate in the same village, orders of reference were made at the instance of the concerned land owners, which culminated into Land Reference Cases Nos. 19/1984 to 32/1984 wherein the learned Reference Court had passed common award dated 25.03.1983 determining the rate of compensation and against the said award dated 25.03.1983, the District Panchayat i.e. the appellant herein had preferred group of appeals, which was registered as First Appeal Nos. 2126/1992 to 2139/1992 with Cross Objection Nos. 202/2009 to 213/2009 and 248/2009. By the said application, the opponents also claimed that by the judgment and order dated 06.11.2009, the High Court has rejected the appeals and confirmed the common award dated 25.03.1983. 9.1 Having stated the aforesaid facts, the opponent prayed that now by virtue of the said judgment and award dated 06.11.2009, High Court has confirmed the earlier award dated 25.03.1983 passed in L.A.R. Cases Nos. 19/1984 to 32/1984 and that therefore, present appeals also may be decided and allowed on the same lines since the lands in question in present appeals are also of the same village which was the subject matter in the said decided appeals. 10. Mr. Patel has submitted that it is appropriate to mention that the narration of the aforesaid facts at this stage is found relevant and necessary for the reason that while passing the award impugned in present group of appeals, the learned Reference Court has relied upon the aforesaid earlier award dated 25.03.1983 passed in Land Reference Cases Nos. 19/1984 to 32/1984 (which has now been confirmed by the High Court) and the learned Reference Court has accepted the decision and declaration in the said award, as the base for making award in present cases. The award impugned in present group of appeals is based on the said earlier award dated 25.03.1983, which has been confirmed by the High Court by the judgment and order dated 06.11.2009 in the First Appeal Nos. 2126/1992 to 2139/1992. The opponent-claimants have, in light of the said judgment and order dated 06.11.2009, prayed that the appeals may be decided and determined in view of the said judgment dated 06.11.2009. 11. 2126/1992 to 2139/1992. The opponent-claimants have, in light of the said judgment and order dated 06.11.2009, prayed that the appeals may be decided and determined in view of the said judgment dated 06.11.2009. 11. So far as present cases are concerned, as mentioned earlier, the Notification under Section 4 was issued on 11th June, 1981 whereas in the said earlier cited cases also, the Notification under Section 4 was issued on 11th June, 1981. In present cases, the lands came to be acquired for the purpose of construction of road i.e. UnjhaVadnagarLadol Road and in the said earliercited cases also the lands were acquired for the same purpose i.e. construction of road of UnjhaVadnagarLadol Road. 12. The claimants, it emerges from the record, led evidence to demonstrate that the lands in question are in Unjha town which, besides being a highly developed town/region, is also a taluka centre and well known for the agricultural produce. All agricultural lands in the entire region are highly fertile and capable of high yields. The town itself is a highly developed town having all facilities and amenities including railway station on Ahmedabad-Delhi Railway Lines. It is a place in the District of Mehsana connected with Siddhpur Town, it has S.T. Depot, telephone facilities, agricultural produce market yard and it is world famous agriculture produce and marketing centre for cumin seeds and fennel seeds. There are many factories processing Isabgul and there are oil mills and factories engaged in pharmaceuticals production as well. Further, the town being located at the cross section of Ahmedabad Delhi railway line and also Ahmedabad Delhi national highway and being close to district centre Mehsana and another taluka centre Sidhpur. The town has facilities for higher eduction, law college and other colleges and very thriving agricultural activities. The claimants contended that the lands are very fertile and also having irrigation facilities which enable the land owners to reap three crops every year. The claimants also led evidence to demonstrate that the lands under acquisition were adjoining to the lands acquired earlier and that the lands in both the cases were, besides being adjacent, were of similar quality and possess similar facilities including irrigation facilities. Crux of the submissions was that the lands possessed very high potentiality for nonagricultural/commercial and agricultural purposes. The claimants also led evidence to demonstrate that the lands under acquisition were adjoining to the lands acquired earlier and that the lands in both the cases were, besides being adjacent, were of similar quality and possess similar facilities including irrigation facilities. Crux of the submissions was that the lands possessed very high potentiality for nonagricultural/commercial and agricultural purposes. It is pertinent that the appellants failed to produce any evidence either to disprove the assertion and evidence of the claimants or to support its contention that the market price/value determined by the Land Acquisition Officer was not only reasonable, but also, just and adequate. 13. In absence of any evidence contrary to the evidence produced by the claimants coupled with absence of evidence even to support the submission that the Land Acquisition Officer's award did not warrant any interference, it is not possible to hold that the Reference Court has committed any error in determining the market value/price and/or in relying upon the earlier award for the aforesaid purpose. The appellant has failed to make out any case against the award passed by the Reference Court, much less any ground to convince or even persuade the court to take a different view. 14. Insofar as the comparability of acquired lands in present cases visavis in the said earliercited cases are concerned, the learned Reference Court has, while passing the impugned award, addressed the said issue and has dealt with the said aspect in the award, more particularly in para8 of the award wherein the learned Reference Court has observed that : "It is admitted fact that the lands are situated near Umiya Mata Mandir and Market Yard in Unjha town. The lands surrounding the land under acquisition are converted from agricultural land to nonagricultural land. There are shops, tobacco, factories and residential houses near the land under acquisition. Claimants have relied upon the award given by learned Assistant Judge in L.A.R. No. 19/84 to 32/84. The said lands were acquired under same award given by Sp.L.A.O. under which lands of present claimants are acquired. The lands were acquired for the same scheme and the lands are situated near each other. The claimants of said award had presented their petitions earlier and said petitions were forwarded in the year 1984 in the Court by Sp.L.A.O. But preset petitions were forwarded in the year 1990 only. The lands were acquired for the same scheme and the lands are situated near each other. The claimants of said award had presented their petitions earlier and said petitions were forwarded in the year 1984 in the Court by Sp.L.A.O. But preset petitions were forwarded in the year 1990 only. So the said petitions were decided earlier and award is produced at Ex.2/1. Learned Assistant Judge had visited the site personally and had made notes of the land acquired and the surrounding area and had relied upon the sale instances which are also produced on record by the claimants. After considering the said sale deed learned Assistant Judge has awarded approximately compensation ranging from Rs.115/ per sq.m. to Rs.135/ per sq.m. in one or two cases. But in the said cases also no reasons are given for awarding compensation at the low rate like Rs.55/ per sq.m. As per principle laid down in the decision cited by learned advocate for claimants the award given by Court for the lands situated in the same village is very much relevant for deciding the market price. In present case the lands under award produced at Ex.21 are situated adjoining to the lands of present claimants and were acquired for same road and under same award. So, the said award is very much relevant for deciding the market value of present claimants also. So far as evidence produced by the opponents is concerned, opponents have examined witness Gopalbhai. Amthabhai Prajapti at Ex.29 who is serving as Deputy Mamlatdar in the office of Sp.L.A. But he has got no personal knowledge regarding the acquisition proceedings in present case. Moreover, he has not seen the lands under acquisition. So evidence is not relevant to decide the market value of land under acquisition. Moreover opponents have examined witness Bharobhai who had purchased land bearing S.No. 2436 situated in the sim of village Unjha for consideration of Rs.2000/ only. But he has admitted in his deposition on oath during cross examination that it was vada land and it was situated at a long distance from the lands under acquisition and the lands under acquisition are valuable lands. Opponents have examined other witness Prahladbhai Ishwarbhai who had purchased land on 20482 which was situated in the sim of village Bhakhar. But he has admitted in his deposition on oath during cross examination that it was vada land and it was situated at a long distance from the lands under acquisition and the lands under acquisition are valuable lands. Opponents have examined other witness Prahladbhai Ishwarbhai who had purchased land on 20482 which was situated in the sim of village Bhakhar. He has also admitted that village Bhakhar is at a distance of about 5 to 6 k.m. from Unjha town i.e. from the lands belonging to present claimants. Village Bhakhar is a small village whereas Unjha town is a well developed and advanced business centre. Therefore the sale instance relied upon by opponents are not at all relevant for deciding market value of land acquired under present award. Looking to the evidence on oath given by claimant Patel Bhikhabhai Nathalal, he was given details of prevailing market rates of land situated in surrounding area, the situation of the lands belonging to the present claimants and the fact that the area where lands acquired are situated is a well developed area and there are shops tobacco factories and residential housing colones etc. and the market yard is situated at a short distance. There is no reason to disbelieve his evidence on oath. Claimants have also produced the list of sale instances and the sale deeds upon which award Ex.21 is based Learned Assistant Judge himself had visited the site and had prepared notes in presence of advocate for the claimants and learned D.G.P. and had also considered the sale deeds. Lands belonging to present claimants were acquired by same notification under which the lands belonging to claimants of award Ex.21 were required. So only because said award is under appeal, it cannot be said that said award cannot be considered for deciding market value of the lands belonging to present claimants. On the contrary if difference view is taken the rights of present claimants will be prejudiced. If the award produced at Ex.21 is modified by Honourable High Court present award also can be modified by appellate Court on the said ground. But at this stage the award produced at Ex.21 is most relevant piece of evidence to decide market value of the land belonging to present claimants. If the award produced at Ex.21 is modified by Honourable High Court present award also can be modified by appellate Court on the said ground. But at this stage the award produced at Ex.21 is most relevant piece of evidence to decide market value of the land belonging to present claimants. Looking to the award produced at Ex.21 in most of the cases market value is awarded at the rate of Rs.120/ to Rs.135/ per sq.m. Learned Assistant Judge has not discussed the evidence and has not reasons for awarding different market value belonging to different claimants. Learned Assistant Judge has awarded market value at the rate of Rs.55/ per sq.m. in one case but no reason is assigned for awarding such low rate of market value. Looking to all these facts and evidence on oath given by the claimant and the documentary evidence produced on record. I come to conclusion that present all the claimants should be awarded compensation on at the uniform rate of Rs.105/ per sq.m. Hence I answer issues Nos. 1 and 2 both in affirmative accordingly." Thus, the award cannot be faulted on the ground that the two sets of lands were not comparable and/or on the ground that the comparability was not proved. The appellantPanchayat has also not been able to show any distinguishing feature between the lands acquired in the earlier group of cases and present group of cases. The appellantPanchayat has not led any evidence to prove that the lands in two group of cases are not comparable and/or similarly situated and/or that there are vital and material demarcating and distinguishing feature. Actually no evidence has been led by the appellant Panchayat. In fact the appellant has failed to prove that the two sets of lands were not comparable. 14.1 It is noticed from the observation by the learned Reference Court that the learned Court has, on perusal and comparison of the cited award with the facts on record also noticed that the time gap between the earlier reference cases and the cited award and the case on hand of the learned Tribunal. 14.1 It is noticed from the observation by the learned Reference Court that the learned Court has, on perusal and comparison of the cited award with the facts on record also noticed that the time gap between the earlier reference cases and the cited award and the case on hand of the learned Tribunal. The learned Court noticed and has recorded that the gap occurred in view of the fact that in the earlier cases, order of reference was made immediately in 1984 whereas in the cases on hand, the competent authority itself delayed the making of reference and the authority made orders of reference only in 1990 which delayed the entire proceedings. The learned Reference Court has also noticed and recorded that in the said earliercited case, the learned Judge had visited the site personally and made detail notes about the factual attributes of the acquired land and surrounding area and also discussed about the relevant sale instances and thereafter, awarded compensation at the rate of ranging Rs.115/ to Rs.135/ per sqrs. mtrs. It is pertinent that the learned Reference Court has also noticed that the lands acquired in present cases are situate adjoining to the lands acquired/considered in the said earliercited case and the purpose of acquisition was also the same. Having noticed that the acquired lands in both cases are of same village and are adjoining lands and have been acquired for the same purpose under Section 4 Notification of even date, the learned Reference Court concluded that the said earlier – cited award was relevant for deciding the market value in present case. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is not possible to take any different view and/or to find any fault or error in the said conclusion and decision of the learned Reference Court. More so, when the appellant Panchayat has failed to point out, from the material on record, any distinguishing feature or document or fact or any material from the record which could persuade and convince the Court to take different view much less to hold that the learned Reference Court has committed any error or acted without application of mind and arbitrarily. 15. The learned Reference Court has also dealt with the instances cited and relied upon by the Panchayat. 15. The learned Reference Court has also dealt with the instances cited and relied upon by the Panchayat. The Court has recorded that the instances pertain to land situate in different village i.e. Village: Bhaghar which is at a distance of 5 to 6 kms. and comparatively very small village as against developed Unjha Town which is also business centre. Obviously as compared to the instances from a village at a distance about 6 kms. the award pertaining to land of same village would be preferable. On this count also it is not possible to find any error in the decision of the learned Reference Court. 16. It is also noticed from the evidence on record that there are many shops, residential housing colonies, agricultural produce market yard, tobacco factories, colleges, higher education facilities, railway station on Ahmedabad Delhi Railway Line, Cooperative Banks, Nationalized Bank, vast potential for agricultural and nonagricultural use of lands, fertile lands and such other relevant aspects. The learned Court has taken note of these details. After detail discussion and clinical comparison, the learned Reference Court has concluded that Exh. 21 (i.e. the earlier – cited award) can be accepted and treated as base for determining the market value and rate of compensation. The appellant Panchayat, as stated above, has not been able to bring out any compelling or convincing reason or any other convincing alternative evidence which would persuade the Court to hold otherwise. 17. It is necessary to note that though one of the contentions raised in the memo of appeal raises the issue of delay in making reference and the contention that reference were barred by limitation is incorporated in the memo of appeal, the said contention has not been pressed in service at the time of hearing. On closer scrutiny of the award, it emerges that the said contention was not raised before the learned Reference Court also. Further more, it also emerges from the reading of the award that the claimants had specifically stated that the notices under Section 12(2) were not served and any intimation about the declaration of award was also not given. On closer scrutiny of the award, it emerges that the said contention was not raised before the learned Reference Court also. Further more, it also emerges from the reading of the award that the claimants had specifically stated that the notices under Section 12(2) were not served and any intimation about the declaration of award was also not given. As against such assertion by the claimants, the appellant Panchayat does not appear to have led any evidence either to disprove the assertion by the claimants and/or to prove that the intimation about declaration of the award under Section 11 was given to each of the claimants and/or that the notices under Section 12(2) were also issued and duly served on the claimants. Even in the appeal memo, the appellant has not stated or at the hearing the appellant has not demonstrated with the aid of any material, the relevant details such as the intimation to the concerned claimants about the date of declaration of award and/or the date of notice under Section 12(2) or any proof demonstrating service of notice under Section 12(2) to the concerned claimants. Not only such details are not mentioned but any material is also not brought to the notice of the Court. The contention has remained an idle reference in the memo, not at all pressed in service and in view of the fact that it was not urged and established with aid of proper evidence before the learned Trial Court i.e. at the first instance, except for convincing reason, it could not have been allowed at the appellate stage if at all it had been raised. It appears that in absence of such evidence the appellant-Panchayat advisedly did not raise and did not urge the contention. However, as stated above, the contention has not been pressed in service, rightly so, in view of the fact that there is no evidence to demonstrate that Section 12 notices were served to the concerned claimants. In absence of such evidence and in view of the fact that the contention was not pressed in service before the learned Reference Court and has also not been raised before this Court at the time of hearing, it does not require further deliberation or discussion. 18. As noted earlier, the learned Reference Court has awarded compensation at the uniform rate of Rs.105/ per sqr. mtrs. 18. As noted earlier, the learned Reference Court has awarded compensation at the uniform rate of Rs.105/ per sqr. mtrs. in view of the cited award in earlier cases and the said earlier cited award has been confirmed by the High Court by the judgment dated 06.11.2009 and the comparability of lands in all respect has been established by the claimants and has been carefully examined by the learned Reference Court. The lands are adjoining. Any contrary evidence, on any point whatsoever, has not been brought on record. In face of such position, I do not see any reason or justification to interfere with the said decision and award. 19. At this stage, it is appropriate to refer to the observation made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment in case between Special Land Acquisition Officer, Kheda and another v. Vasudev Chandrashankar and another reported in (1997) 11 SCC 218 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed in para5 of the judgment as follows: "The question, therefore, is: whether the assessment of the compensation made by the reference court is vitiated by any error of principle of law warranting interference. It is now settled legal position that the award of the reference court relating to the same village of the similar land possessed of same quality of land and potential offer a comparable base for determination of the compensation. The reference Court also noted in paragraphs 18 and 19 of the similarities of the lands under acquisition and that they were covered by EX.43. No doubt, the lands under acquisition are situated at the outskirts of the village. In the absence of any tangible material brought on record, as regards the distinctive features of differentiation between the quality of the land situated, The land, subject matter of Ex.43 and the lands under acquisition Ex.48, it is difficult to find out whether the reference Court has applied any wrong principle of law in determination of the compensation. In the light of the findings recorded by the reference Court in paragraphs 18 and 19, we think that, in the absence of any distinct material brought on record, even in crossexamination of the witnesses, we cannot hazard to conclude that they offered no comparable value, in particular, when the award earlier has already attained finality. Under these circumstance, we think that there are no circumstances warranting interference." 20. Under these circumstance, we think that there are no circumstances warranting interference." 20. The decision in earlier cases has been examined by the Court in group of appeals being First Appeal No. 2126 of 1992 to 2139 of 1992. The said appeals came to be disposed of by the court by order dated 6.11.2009 wherein the court has, after examining the material on record and the contentions raised before the court, recorded the findings in para 23 to 25, which reads thus: "23. So considering his evidence, Reference Court has rightly come to conclusion which proved two facts, one is suit land situated in developing area and in a year claimants are taking three crops in each season and suit land having facility of tubewell and irrigation. Therefore, finding given by Reference Court that claimant must be taking three crops in a year and looking to development of suit land, market value has been fixed while assessing as high. For that, contention raised by learned advocate Mr. Buch can not be accepted because evidence of Kantilal Joitaram Patel Exh. 47 remained unchallenged because there is no rebuttal evidence produced by appellant before Reference Court. The Reference Court has considered each sale instances and also situation of lands in question which acquired by authority and distance of each lands belonging to claimants and on that basis Exh. 64 has been considered being undisputed fact and thereafter not relied upon sale deed of 1982 to 1985 and also considered effect of sale deed of 1980 and then fixed market price keeping in mind development of lands in question and claimants are receiving income from agricultural lands and they used to take three crops in a year. The development of Unjha village is having various facilities and also having colleges including law colleges and agricultural products of Unjha has been exported. Considering various activities of market Produce Committee and evidence of Exh. 47 village form of 7/12 of each suit land. 24. According to my opinion, Reference Court has rightly considered each lands bearing survey number belonging to claimant and he has given detailed reasoning in support of its conclusion while fixing market price in each case and also rightly analysis and scrutinised for fixing market price for each land after personal visit and on that basis preparing notes Exh. 64 which was not in dispute by either of party. 25. 64 which was not in dispute by either of party. 25. Therefore, contention raised by learned advocate Mr. Buch on behalf of appellant and learned advocate Mr. Satta can not be accepted. I have considered cross objections filed by claimants but according to my opinion, scientific method has been adopted with full application of mind knowing fully well by Reference Court that market price is to be fixed on the basis of potentiality, fertility and utility of lands in question, distance from gramtal and surrounding area and each lands having its own value because of situated in particular place. Therefore, contention raised by learned advocate Mr. Satta can not be accepted." Having observed thus, the Court rejected the appeals and confirmed the award dated 25.3.1983 passed in L.A.R. Case Nos. 19 of 1984 to 32 of 1984. 21. In view of the findings recorded by the court, with regard to the said earlier award dated 25.3.1983 in reference case Nos. 19 of 1984 to 32 of 1984 and in view of the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Special Land Acquisition Officer, Kheda & Anr. v. Vasudev Chandrashankar & Anr. (supra), this Court is of the view that the Reference Court has properly examined the material on record before it and after proper consideration of the material on record and having due regard to the contentions raised by the present appellants, considered it appropriate to rely upon the earlier award and determined the market price on that basis and that therefore, the impugned award does not call for any interference. 22. The appellants have failed to make out any ground to upset the decision of the Reference Court or to make any reduction in the market value/price determined by the Reference Court. The appeals, therefore, fail and are hereby rejected. Decree to be drawn accordingly. No cost. Appeals rejected.