Judgment Jayant Patel, J.—Admit. Ms. Verma appearing for the respondents – original claimants waives Notice of admission. With the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for both the sides, the appeal is finally heard. 2. The short facts of the case appear to be that the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the acquisition of the land in question was published on 15.7.1982. Thereafter, the notification under Section 6 of the Act was published on 6.1.1983. The award was passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer on 31.8.1984. As the claimants were not satisfied with the compensation as awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, the dispute was raised under Section 18 of the Act, which ultimately came to be referred to the Reference Court for adjudication in Reference Case No. 388 of 1989. The Reference Court ultimately passed the judgment and award, whereby it has fixed the market price of the land at Rs. 97,200/- per hectare and it has awarded the compensation accordingly. The Reference Court has also awarded other statutory benefits of solatium and the interest as per the provisions of the Act. It is under these circumstances, the present appeal before this Court. 3. We have heard Ms. Narsinghani for the State and Ms. Verma for the respondents - original claimants. 4. The only contention raised by the learned AGP is that the Reference Court has relied upon the earlier decision of the Reference Court in Reference Case No. 344 of 1990 for acquisition of the different lands of the same village i.e. village Morkhala, Tal: Sankheda, Distt: Vadodara. However, the Reference Court has lost sight of the difference of the period of the notification. It was submitted that in the said case, the notification under Section 4 of the Act was published on 17.7.1984, whereas in the present case, the notification was published under Section 4 of the Act on 15.7.1982, meaning thereby, two years earlier than the said land of Reference Case No. 344 of 1990. It was therefore, submitted that even if it is considered that there was valid base on the part of the Reference Court to rely upon the earlier decision, the reduction in the price was required to be made. It was therefore, submitted that even if it is considered that there was valid base on the part of the Reference Court to rely upon the earlier decision, the reduction in the price was required to be made. She further submitted that as per the settled law, it should be 10% per year and consequently, would be 20% less in the price fixed at Rs. 9.72 paisa per sq mtr. She submitted that the said aspect is not considered by the Reference Court and therefore, there is an error committed, which deserves to be interfered with in the present appeal. 5. Whereas, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents – original claimants is not in a position to dispute the factual aspects of the difference of two years’ gap between the notifications under Section 4 of the Act, i.e. in the earlier Reference Case No. 344 of 1990 and the present case. She only contended that the Reference Court has correctly determined the market price. 6. The examination of the said contention shows that on factual aspects, there is no dispute namely that in Land Reference Case No. 344 of 1990, price fixed was at Rs. 9.72 paisa per sq mtr, but the notification under Section 4 of the Act was published on 11.7.1984, whereas in the present case, the notification under Section 4 of the Act has been published on 15.7.1982. Therefore, it is an admitted position that in the present case, notification under Section 4 of the Act is two years earlier than that of Land Reference Case No. 344 of 1990. Learned AGP is right in submitting that it is, by now, well settled that if there is difference in the period of the acquisition when the notification under Section 4 of the Act has been published, in normal circumstances, 10% appreciation can be considered per year. Since in the present case, there is no question of appreciation, but for the purpose of reduction of the price, such formula or the principles can be applied in a reverse manner for reduction of the compensation or the price of the land in question. Applying the same formula, the market price shall be at least 20% less than the market price fixed at Rs. 9.72 per sq mtr for the acquisition, wherein notification under Section 4 of the Act was published two years later. Applying the same formula, the market price shall be at least 20% less than the market price fixed at Rs. 9.72 per sq mtr for the acquisition, wherein notification under Section 4 of the Act was published two years later. If the calculation is made accordingly, 20% of Rs. 9.72 would come to Rs. 1.94 which will be required to be deducted, and consequently, the amount comes to Rs. 7.80 paisa per sq mtr for assessment of the market price of the land on the date of the notification under Section 4 of the Act dated 15.7.1982. Therefore, it can be said that there is ex facie error committed by the Reference Court in awarding compensation exceeding the amount of Rs. 7.80 paisa per sq mtr. Consequently, the judgment and award passed by the Reference Court deserves to be interfered with to that extent. 7. In view of the aforesaid observations and discussion, the judgment and award passed by the Reference Court is modified to the extent that the compensation of the land in question shall be Rs. 78000/- per hectare [additional amount of compensation shall be at Rs. 70000/- per hectare (Rs. 78000 – Rs. 70000)]. Consequently, the compensation shall stand allowed only to that extent. The other statutory benefits of solatium and the interest would automatically proportionately get reduced to that extent. The remaining part of the judgment and award of the Reference Court would not be required to be interfered with. 8. The appeal is partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. Decree accordingly. No order as to costs.