JUDGMENT : H.K. Rathod, J. Heard learned advocate Ms. MS Desai on behalf of appellant, learned advocate Mr. CR Patel appearing for respondent claimant and learned AGP Mr. Sharma appearing for respondent no. 2 and 3. 2. Considering submissions made by all learned advocates. All appeals are admitted. Learned advocate Mr. Patel waives service of notice on behalf of respondent no. 1 and learned AGP Mr. Sharma waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent no. 2 and 3 State authorities. With consent of all learned advocates, appeals are taken up for final hearing today. 3. In these group of appeals, appellant Executive Engineer, Gujarat Energy Transmission Corporation, Jambuva has challenged award passed by Reference Court, Vadodara in Land Reference Case no. 844/92 to 856/92 main LAR case no. 844/92 exh 32 decided on 30/4/2008. The Reference Court has awarded an additional amount of compensation Rs. 45.80ps per sqmt with other consequential benefit in favour of respondent claimants. The respondent claimants have filed Land Reference Cases against present appellant for enhancement of compensation u/s 18 of Land Acquisition Act. The present Land Reference Cases arising out of common award passed by Land Acquisition Officer u/s 11 of Act on 28/2/1991 in compensation case no. 28/85. 4. The lands of claimants situated at village Amaliya Taluka District, Vadodara were sought to be acquired for a purpose of construction of expansion of 400 K.V. Substation J.T. Company (GEB) and Awas Yojna and electricity. For that purpose, notification u/s 4 was issued on 10/8/1989 and section 6 notification was issued on 27/7/1990. After following procedure laid down in Act, notification u/s 9 of Act were served to claimants. 5. The claimants had claimed compensation of Rs. 7,00,000/- per Hector, which comes to Rs. 70/- per sqmt. The Land Acquisition Officer while passing award on 28/2/1991 decided market price of lands in question Rs. 22,000/- per Hector means Rs. 2.20ps per sqmt for their acquired lands and dissatisfied with compensation, References have been made to Reference Court. All the land Reference cases are consolidated by Reference Court vide exh 22. 6. On behalf of appellant, written statement was filed raising objections and award passed by Land Acquisition Officer is quite fare and reasonable and it is neither low nor inadequate in any way. The claimant has not produced any documentary evidence in support of their claim before Land Acquisition Officer. 6. On behalf of appellant, written statement was filed raising objections and award passed by Land Acquisition Officer is quite fare and reasonable and it is neither low nor inadequate in any way. The claimant has not produced any documentary evidence in support of their claim before Land Acquisition Officer. Therefore, Land Acquisition Officer has considered relevant factors while deciding market price of lands in question. There is no irrigation facility and cultivation of land is totally depend upon rain and claim made by claimant is highly exaggerated and exorbitant. The claimant has not produced any evidence in support of their claim. Therefore, references were required to be dismissed. 7. The issues have been framed by Reference Court, Vadodara. Before Reference Court, on behalf of claimant one Arvindbhai Dahyabhai Patel vide exh 24 (claimant of LR case no. 844/91) was examined. The documentary evidence produced by claimant i.e. copy of sale deed exh 25, certified copy of judgment passed in LAR case no. 940/90 exh 26 and copy of award in compensation case no. 28/85. On behalf of appellant, Rameshbhai Vagabhai Baria-Special Land Acquisition Officer was examined at exh 28 and one Akshaybhai Ratanlal Shah, who is Executive Engineer of opponent J.T. Company, Jambuva was examined vide exh 29. No documentary evidence produced by appellant before Reference Court. The written argument submitted by claimant exh 31 and on behalf of appellant, oral arguments have been made before Reference Court. Initially, claimants have asked compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- but subsequently vide exh 16, claim has been enhanced which was granted by Reference Court to the extent of Rs. 7,00,000/- per Hector. 8. Learned advocate Ms. M.S. Desai has made submission that Reference Court has not properly appreciated cross examination of claimants, where it was admitted by claimants that lands belonging to previous award and land in respect to present case are not similar and both lands are not having same fertility, potential value and utility. Therefore, comparison which has been made by Reference Court in respect to previous award of same village exh 26 being erroneous decision of Reference Court, which is contrary to record. 9. She submitted that village Harani, Darjipura, Nimeta, Sayajipura, Dumad, Amariyala are not nearby village of Amaliya. She also submitted that claimant has not produced any evidence to establish income from yield in land in question. For that, also no evidence produced on record by claimant. 9. She submitted that village Harani, Darjipura, Nimeta, Sayajipura, Dumad, Amariyala are not nearby village of Amaliya. She also submitted that claimant has not produced any evidence to establish income from yield in land in question. For that, also no evidence produced on record by claimant. The amount of an additional compensation, which has been awarded by Reference Court is more than that awarded in previous award exh 26. 10. She submitted that in previous award exh 26 dated 10/5/2007, Rs. 40/- per sqmt has been awarded, but in fact of this case, Reference Court has awarded Rs. 45.80ps being an additional amount of compensation. Therefore, in short, her submission is that Reference Court has committed gross error in relying upon previous award exh 26 and there is no cogent evidence produced on record by claimant to establish that land in both cases are having same fertility, potential value and utility. Therefore, previous award should not have to be taken into account while awarding an additional amount of compensation in favour of claimant. 11. She submitted that oral evidence of Shri Arvindbhai Dahayabhai Patel Exh 24, Rameshbhai Vagabhai Bariya Exh 28 and Akshaybhai Ratanlal Shah exh 29 not properly appreciated by Reference Court and consequential benefit is also wrongly awarded by Reference Court. Therefore, interference of this Court is required. 12. Learned advocate Mr. CB Patel appearing for respondent claimant submitted that previous award in land Reference Cases no. 942 to 948 exh 26, which has been relied by claimant dated 10/5/2007 in respect to acquiring land of same village, where section 4 notification is dated 16/1/1986 and award passed by Land Acquisition Officer on 16/10/1987 and Reference Court has passed an award on 10/5/2007. He also submitted that in facts of present case, section 4 notification is dated 10/8/1989 means previous award where section 4 notification is prior to three years and eight months of present notification of section 4. Therefore, Reference Court has rightly grant increased 10% rise in favour of claimant while deciding an additional amount of compensation in favour of claimant. 13. He also submitted that previous award exh 26 in land Reference Case no. 942/90 to 956/90 dated 10/5/2007 where Rs. 40/- per sqmt awarded by Reference Court in respect to same village has been challenged by Special Land Acquisition Officer before this Court in FA no. 13. He also submitted that previous award exh 26 in land Reference Case no. 942/90 to 956/90 dated 10/5/2007 where Rs. 40/- per sqmt awarded by Reference Court in respect to same village has been challenged by Special Land Acquisition Officer before this Court in FA no. 3528/2008 to 3539/2008 decided by this Court on 3/9/2009, where this Court has dismissed first appeal preferred by appellant while considering entire evidence on record. The decision of this Court as referred above in group of appeals, where Reference Court has observed in para 12 that lands of village Dumad is situated nearby village Amaliyara and acquired land of both villages are same in all nature and considering fertility and potentiality of acquired land of both villages. Therefore, market price of acquired lands of village Kumetha Rs. 4,00,000/- per hector has been fixed by Reference Court. 14. He submitted that award, which has been relied by Reference Court exh 26 which was challenged by appellant before this Court in group of appeal, has been dismissed by this Court while confirming exh 26 previous award by order dated 3/9/2009. Therefore, Reference Court has rightly examined matter and relied and appreciated evidence of claimant and come to conclusion that lands belonging to claimants in respect to previous award and lands belonging to claimants of present case are of having same nature in all respect and also having same fertility, potentiality and utility, which has been proved by evidence of claimant. Therefore, no interference is required by this Court as no error is committed by Reference Court while deciding references. 15. I have considered submission made by both learned advocates and I have perused award passed by Reference Court. It is necessary to note that one Arvindbhai Dahayabhai Patel was examined at exh 24. In cross examination, claimant witness admitted that fertility and potentiality of each portion of land is similar to previous award. The Special Land Acquisition officer Rameshabhi Vagabhai Bariya was examined at exh 28. In cross examination, said witness of appellant has stated that he has no knowledge where village is situated and he has seen village Harni and Amaliya both are adjacent to each other. The village Harni is within the limit of corporation and land in question acquired are situated on National High way no. 8. In cross examination, said witness of appellant has stated that he has no knowledge where village is situated and he has seen village Harni and Amaliya both are adjacent to each other. The village Harni is within the limit of corporation and land in question acquired are situated on National High way no. 8. The land of claimants are situated on main road leading from Baroda to Halol and connected with National Highway no. 8 from Dumad to Harni National Highway no. 8. 16. In light of aforesaid evidence of appellant witness and in cross examination, claimant has admitted that both kind of lands are having same fertility and potentiality of each portion of lands are similar. Against which, no rebuttal evidence produced by appellant before Reference Court that both kind of lands are not of similar nature and in absence of that evidence, Reference Court has relied upon previous award exh 26. For that, according to my opinion, Reference Court has not committed any error which would require interference by this Court. 17. The relevant discussion made by Reference Court after considering evidence on record and submission made by both learned advocates in para 12 to 16 and 20 and 21 are quoted as under: 12. On behalf of all the claimants, the claimant namely Shri Arvindbhai Dahyabhai Patel has been examined at Exh. 24, wherein, he has deposed that he is a claimant of L.R. Case No. 844/1991. That the lands of the claimants are situated in the sim of village Amaliya, Tal. Dist. Vadodara. He has deposed that their lands were acquired by the Special Land Acquisition Officer for the purpose of construction of Expansion of 400 K.V. Sub station that is for the benefit of public at large. That the Notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 10/08/1989 and thereafter the Notification under Section 6 was issued on 27/07/1990. After following the procedures laid down in the Act, the notices under Section 9 of the Act were served to the claimants. Thereafter, the Land Acquisition Officer declared the Award on 28/02/1991 fixing the compensation at Rs. 22,000/- per hector for their acquired lands which was too meager and unreasonable. He has also stated that they claimed Rs. 70/- per Sq. Mtrs. He has deposed that the lands of the claimants were fertile, potential and irrigated. Thereafter, the Land Acquisition Officer declared the Award on 28/02/1991 fixing the compensation at Rs. 22,000/- per hector for their acquired lands which was too meager and unreasonable. He has also stated that they claimed Rs. 70/- per Sq. Mtrs. He has deposed that the lands of the claimants were fertile, potential and irrigated. The claimant has stated that the claimants were taking principal crops like cotton and paddy and juvar, wheat, tuvar and vegetable etc. in a year. He has also stated that the lands which were acquired are having more fertility and potentiality and having the irrigated facilities and hence they used to take crops in a year. The compensation awarded to the claimants in respect of their land situated at village Amaliya, Tal., Dist. Vadodara, is totally inadequate and was too meager and unreasonable. It is also stated by the claimants that the Land Acquisition Officer had not properly determined the prevailing market value of their acquired lands. That, the lands of the claimants were fertile and potential. That the claimants used to take main crops of Cotton and paddy, and Juvar. It is stated that the land of the claimants are very potential and fertile and they used to take three crops in a year. It is also stated that the land of the claimants are situated on the main road leading from Vadodara to Halol and connected with the national high way no. 8 i.e. from Dumad to Harnai N.H. No. 8. That village Harni is falling with the limits of Corporation and the lands of the claimants are adjacent to the corporation area of Vadodara City and are at the distance of only 5-7 K.M. and the surrounding village like Harni Darjipura, Nimeta, Sayajipura, Dumad Amariyala are included in the City area and the village of the claimants is the adjoining village. That the village i.e. Amaliya is a lying, being and situate in a very developed area and the village of the claimants is very nearer to Vadodara Urban Development Authority and is likely to declare a residential zone are and hence the amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer is very low, meager. They have further stated that in their village, there are facilities of Balmandir, Primary school, Milk dairy, hospital, post officer, telephone, electricity and motors etc. They have further stated that in their village, there are facilities of Balmandir, Primary school, Milk dairy, hospital, post officer, telephone, electricity and motors etc. and looking to the development and facilities and amenities available in the village, the actual price of the acquired land definitely go up. He has also stated that adjacent to the sim of his village there is a office of Air-force, Golden Tobacco Company and a national high way no.8 is only at the distance of 2 kilometer from his village. The Land Acquisition Officer however had not taken into consideration the relevant factors while determining the compensation. That due to the acquisition, their lands have been divided into two parts that means there is a fragmentation, and hence the value of their land is decreased. The Land Acquisition Officer had fixed the market value of the acquired lands on the basis of sale transactions for last five years. It is stated by the claimants that the Land Acquisition Officer had committed grave error in determining the actual price of their acquired land. That the market value of the acquired land was more than Rs. 7,00,000/- per hector. But the Land Acquisition Officer had awarded the amount of compensation to the claimants at Rs. 22,000/- per hector which was too low, meager and inadequate. The said witness has also stated that previously the land of their village was acquired for the purpose of construction of the canal and the notification U/Sec. 4 of that case was published on 16/1/1986 in Award Case No. 88/86 and Award was declared on 16/10/1987 and references against the said award were filed vide L.R. Case No. 942 to 959 of 1990 in which the 6th Addl. Sr. Civil Judge has passed an Award on 10/5/2007 awarded Rs. 40/- per Sq. Mtrs., and the said award is of the village under reference. That the land of the claimants were acquired after four years of the award of that case and hence as per the decision of Hon'ble High Court, the claimants are entitled to get 10% increase and accordingly they are entitled to get Rs. 68/- per Sq. Mtrs. That the certified copy of the Judgment passed in L.R. Case No. 942 to 959/90 dated 10/5/2007 is produced here in this matter at Vide Exh. 26. 13. In the cross-examination by the hands of Ld. DGP Mr. 68/- per Sq. Mtrs. That the certified copy of the Judgment passed in L.R. Case No. 942 to 959/90 dated 10/5/2007 is produced here in this matter at Vide Exh. 26. 13. In the cross-examination by the hands of Ld. DGP Mr. R.J. Shah for the opponent no.1 & 2, the claimants' witness has admitted that their village Amaliya is at the distance of 15/20 Km. Away. He has also admitted in his cross-examination that the fertility of the lands are different. The said witness has denied that the compensation given to them is adequate, just and proper. The Claimants' witness in his cross-examination by the Ld. Advocate Mr. Prakesh Bhatt for the opponent no. 3 has stated that the award was declared after following all the legal procedure and after giving notices to the concerned account holder. He has denied that they have accepted amount of award without hesitation. He has also denied that their lands were non-irrigated land. He has admitted that the lands of their village was previously acquired for the purpose of construction of canal and the award was declared on 16/10/1997 but he has no knowledge whether an appeal was filed against the said award. It is not true that the award was passed considering the sale instances of last five years. He has admitted that the fertility and potentiality of each portion of the land is similar. He has denied that the cultivation of the land is depend upon the rain. 14. on the other hand, on behalf of the opponent no. 1 & 2, the Special Land Acquisition Officer namely Shri Rameshbhai Vegabhai Bariya has been examined at Exh. 28, wherein, he has stated that the compensation awarded to the claimants by the Land Acquisition was just and proper. The claimants were heard before declaring the award. However, they had not submitted any documentary evidence in support of their claim demanded before the Special Land Acquisition Officer. He has further deposed that the compensation fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer after considering the relevant factors and on the basis of the sale instances of adjoining lands for last five years. And there is no reason to interfere with the Award. That the lands were acquired for the purpose of benefit of public at large and the amount was already paid to them. And there is no reason to interfere with the Award. That the lands were acquired for the purpose of benefit of public at large and the amount was already paid to them. In the cross-examination, the said witness has stated that he has no knowledge where the village is situated. He has seen village Harni. Harni and Amaliya are adjacent to each other. Harni is within the limit of corporation. He has also stated that the acquired lands are situated on H.H. no. 8. He has also stated that the amount awarded in these cases are just and proper. 15. The Witness Akshay Ratilal Shah has deposed at Exh. 29, in which he has stated that the lands under references are acquired for the purposes of public at large after following due procedure. He has also stated that all the opportunities have been afforded to the applicants/claimants. That the price of the lands were fixed after considering all the evidences but in support of the claims of the claimants, they have not produced any documentary evidence. That payment of the awarded compensation has already made to the claimants and they are not entitled to get additional compensation. In his cross-examination, he has stated that they had not fixed the price, but the land acquisition Officer has decided the market price of the land after following due procedure. He has also stated that there is no development in the village. 16. Ld. Advocate Ms. Sharmila Shah for the claimants has submitted that the lands of the claimants were fertile and potential. That the claimants were taking crops of cotton, tuvar and juvar in the different season. That the lands of the claimants are situated in the sim of village Amaliya, Tal. Dist. Vadodara. He has also submitted that their lands were acquired by the Special Land Acquisition Officer for the purpose of construction of Expansion of 400 K.V. Substation that is for the benefit of public at large. That the Notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 10/08/1989 and thereafter the Notification under Section 6 was issued on 27/07/1990. After following the procedures laid down in the Act, the notices under Section 9 of the Act were served to the claimants. Thereafter, the Land Acquisition Officer declared the Award on 28/02/1991 fixing the compensation at Rs. After following the procedures laid down in the Act, the notices under Section 9 of the Act were served to the claimants. Thereafter, the Land Acquisition Officer declared the Award on 28/02/1991 fixing the compensation at Rs. 22,000/- per hector for their acquired lands which was too meager and unreasonable. He has also stated that they claimed Rs. 70/- per Sq. Mtrs. since the lands of the claimants were fertile, potential and irrigated. The claimant has stated that the claimants were taking principal crops like cotton and paddy and juvar, wheat, tuver and vegetable etc. in a year. He has also stated that the lands which were acquired are having more fertility and potentiality and having the irrigated facilities and hence they used to take three crops in a year. The compensation awarded tot he claimants in respect of their lands situated at village Amaliyara, Tal, Dist. Vadodara, is totally inadequate and was too meager and unreasonable. That the Land Acquisition Officer had not properly determined the prevailing market value of their acquired lands. That, the lands of the claimants were fertile and potential. That the claimants used to take main crops of Cotton and paddy, and Juvar. It is also stated that the land of the claimants are situated on the main road leading from Vadodara to Halol and connected with the national high way no. 8 i.e. from Dumad to Harnai N.H. No. 8. That village Harni is falling with the limits of Corporation and the lands of the claimants are adjacent to the corporation area of Vadodara City and are at the distance of only 5-7 K.M. And the surrounding villages like Harni, Darjipura, Nimeta, Sayajipura, Dumad, Amariyala are included in the City area and the village of the claimants is the adjoining village. That the village i.e. Amaliyara is a lying, being and situate in a very developed area and the village of the claimant is very nearer to Vadodara Urban Development Authority and is likely to declare a residential zone are and hence the amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer is very law, meager. That in the Kumetha village, there are facilities of Balmandir, Primary school, Milk dairy, hospital, post office, telephone, electricity and motors etc. and looking to the development and facilities and amenities available in the village, the actual price of the acquired land definitely go up. That in the Kumetha village, there are facilities of Balmandir, Primary school, Milk dairy, hospital, post office, telephone, electricity and motors etc. and looking to the development and facilities and amenities available in the village, the actual price of the acquired land definitely go up. He has also stated that adjacent to the sim of his village there is a office of airforce, and Golden Tobacco Company and a national high way no. 8 is only at the distance of 2 kilometer from his village. The Land Acquisition Officer however had not taken into consideration the relevant factors while determining the compensation. That due to the acquisition their lands have been divided into tow parts that means there is a fragmentation, and hence the value of their land is decreased. The Land Acquisition Officer had fixed the market value of the acquired lands on the basis of sale transactions for last five years. It is stated that the Land Acquisition Officer had committed grave error in determining the actual price of their acquired land. That the market value of the acquired land was more than Rs. 7,00,000/- per Hector. But, the Land Acquisition Officer had awarded the amount of compensation to the claimants at Rs. 22,000/- per hector which was too low, meager and inadequate. The Ld. Advocate Mr. J.B. Patel has also submitted that previously the land of village Amaliyara was acquired for the purpose of construction of the canal and the notification U/Sec.4 of that case was published on 16/1/1986 in Award Case No. 88/86 and Award was declared on 16/10/1987 and references against the said award were filed vide L.R. Case No. 942 to 956 of 1990 in which the 6th Addl. Sr. Civil Judge has passed an Award on 10/5/2007 awarded Rs. 40/- per Sq. Mtrs., and the said award is of the village under reference. That the notification of that case was published on 16/01/1986 and the notification of the case on hand was published on 10/08/1989 that means after the period of three years and eight months and hence as per the decision of Hon'ble High Court, the claimants are entitled to get Rs. 68/- per Sq. Mtrs. That the certified copy of the Judgment passed in L.R. Case No. 942 to 948/90 dated 10/5/2007 is produced here in this matter at vide Exh. 26. in which the Hon'ble 6th Addl. Sr. 68/- per Sq. Mtrs. That the certified copy of the Judgment passed in L.R. Case No. 942 to 948/90 dated 10/5/2007 is produced here in this matter at vide Exh. 26. in which the Hon'ble 6th Addl. Sr. Civil Judge has awarded Rs. 40/- per Sq. Mtr., which is for the land of same village hence considering the decision of Apex Court, the applicants are entitled to get 10% increase for the subsequent year. In support of his submissions, the Ld. Advocate for the claimants has relied on the following case authorities: - A.I.R. 2001 S.C. Page 3516 - S.C.C. 2004 (8) S.C. Page 270 - 2001 (2) G.L.H. 583 (Supreme Court) - Supreme to-day-1997 (1) S.C. page No. 308. - C.C.C. 1994 (2) Bombay High Court page 355. - (2002) 3 S.C.C. 688 20. That the Ld. Advocate for the claimant has also drawn the attention of this Court towards the judgment delivered by the 6th Addl. Sr. Civil Judge, Vadodara on 10/05/2007 in which the Hon'ble Court has awarded the compensation of Rs. 40/- per Sq. Mtrs., that the lands of that reference case and the lands of the present references cases are of the one and same village and hence requested this Court to award the compensation of Rs. 40/- per Sq. Mtrs. as per judgment of same village and also requested to award 10% increase for every subsequent years, for that the Ld. Advocate Mr. J.B. Patel has place reliance on the judgment of Special Land Acquisition Officer v. Shailesh H. Patel reported in 1998 (1) GCD page 62, and requested this Court to award 70/- Rs. Per Sq. Mtrs. 21. As could be seen from the facts emerging from the record of the present case that the previous Award of the 6th Addl. Sr. Civil Judge in respect of the agricultural lands almost of the same village. That the award of previous case i.e. Land Ref. Case No. 942/90 to 959/90 is relied on by the present court for ascertaining the market value. That the agricultural lands covered under the earlier award are of the same village i.e. Amaliyara and hence there is no hesitation in awarding the compensation of Rs. 48/- per Sq. Mtrs. (Rs. 40/- + Rs. 8/- increase) though the claimants are entitled to Rs. That the agricultural lands covered under the earlier award are of the same village i.e. Amaliyara and hence there is no hesitation in awarding the compensation of Rs. 48/- per Sq. Mtrs. (Rs. 40/- + Rs. 8/- increase) though the claimants are entitled to Rs. 70/- as there is three years and eight months difference in both the notifications in between the above stated case and the case on hand, however, the present court comes to the conclusion that the claimants are entitled to Rs. 48/- per sq. mtrs. That the claimants have already received the amount of Rs. 2.20 per sq. mtrs. and hence the same is required to be deducted from the aforesaid amount meaning thereby 48.00- 2.20 = 45.80 per Sq. Mtrs. 18. The entire evidence has been discussed by Reference Court while appreciating oral evidence as well as documentary evidence produced by both parties and evidence of claimant is proved facts that in respect to previous award exh 26 of same village where lands in question acquired are having same and similar potentiality, fertility and utility. Against which, no rebuttal evidence produced by appellant before Reference Court. While considering difference in respect to section 4 notification in both cases in previous award and present case comes to three years and eight months, 10% rise has been given to claimants for determining market price of lands in question after relying upon decision of Apex Court. Apart from that previous award exh 26 was challenged before this Court by appellant in FA no. 3528/2008 to 3539/2008 decided on 3/9/2009 where following observation made by this Court are as under: "The decision which has relied by learned advocate Mr. B.S. Patel where award passed by Reference Court in respect to village Kumetha was challenged in First Appeal No. 379 to 388 of 2009 and said First Appeals are decided on 6/3/2009. This Court in detail examined the question of market price and also considered previous award with Section-4 notification in respective cases where land in question has been acquired by State. This Court has considered observations made by Reference Court for deciding matter. This Court in detail examined the question of market price and also considered previous award with Section-4 notification in respective cases where land in question has been acquired by State. This Court has considered observations made by Reference Court for deciding matter. The Reference Court has come to conclusion that village Dumad is situated near village Kumetha and acquired land of both villages are same in nature considering fertility and potentiality of lands and therefore this Court has come to conclusion that Reference Court has rightly examined matter giving cogent reasons in support of his conclusion. Therefore First Appeals filed by State of Gujarat are dismissed on 6/3/2009. Therefore considering reasoning given by Reference Court in facts of present case as discussed in para nos.9 to 12, according to my opinion the question raised by appellants is squarely covered in First Appeal Nos. 379 to 388 of 2009 decided on 6/3/2009. Therefore contention raised by learned AGP Mr. Raval cannot be accepted and according to my opinion Reference Court, Vadodara has not committed any error while deciding market price of land in question acquired by State of Gujarat i.e. Rs. 4,00,000/- per hectare in respect to village Amliayara, Taluka and District Vadodara because village Amaliyara is situated nearby village Dumad. So both villages are adjoining villages and lands of both village are same in nature and considering fertility and potentiality of acquired land of both villages as well as considering lands acquired for village Kumetha where Reference Court has fixed market price of Rs. 4,00,000/- per hectare. It is also considered by Reference Court that village Amliyara and Kumetha are adjoining lands. Therefore, Reference Court has rightly considered award passed by Reference Court in respect to village Kumetha which award has been confirmed by this Court in First Appeal Nos. 379 to 388 of 2009. Therefore, reasoning's given by Reference Court, Vadodara cannot considered to be unreasonable or arbitrary. On the contrary Reference Court, Vadodara has rightly examined matter while considering previous award Exh.30 as discussed in para-10 of impugned award. In facts of present case land situated at village Amliyara has been examined by Reference Court with reference to land situated at village Dumad and Kumetha and thereafter considering adjoining villages i.e. Kumetha and Amaliyara, Reference Court has accordingly fixed market price of Rs. In facts of present case land situated at village Amliyara has been examined by Reference Court with reference to land situated at village Dumad and Kumetha and thereafter considering adjoining villages i.e. Kumetha and Amaliyara, Reference Court has accordingly fixed market price of Rs. 4,00,000/- per hectare therefore Reference Court has not committed any error for same which requires interference of this Court. 19. In light of aforesaid discussion made by this Court, contention which has been raised by learned advocate Ms. Desai can not be accepted because it is contrary to record, therefore, same are rejected. According to my opinion, Reference Court has not committed any error while deciding references made by claimants, which would require interference by this Court. The Reference Court has given clear finding and reasoning in support of its conclusion. Such finding can not consider to be baseless and perverse. Therefore, no interference is required by this Court. 20. Hence, there is no substance in present group of appeals, same are dismissed. Today, first appeals are dismissed by this Court, therefore, no further order would require in civil application no. 2105/10 to 2117/2010. Accordingly, all applications are disposed of. Decree is to be drawn immediately. 21. Learned advocate Mr. Patel request to this Court to issue some suitable direction against appellant. So they may deposit an additional amount of compensation awarded by Reference Court with all statutory consequential benefits within some reasonable time because section 4 notification is of 1989. Considering request, it is directed to appellant to deposit an additional amount of compensation as awarded by Reference Court with all statutory consequential benefit together with costs and interest before Reference Court, Vadodara within a period of two months from date of receiving copy of said order. After realising said amounts from appellant, it is directed to Reference Court, Vadodara to pay amount of compensation as awarded by Reference Court by A/c payee cheque in name of each respondent claimant after proper verification. Appeals Dismissed.