Judgment J.C. Upadhyaya, J.—These appeals arise out of common judgment and award rendered by the Ld. 10th Addl. Sr. Civil Judge, Vadodara, on 14/6/2005 in Land Reference Case Nos. 362 to 374 of 1989 [main Land Reference Case No. 352/1989], whereby the Reference Court determined the market value of the lands of the appellants – claimants situated in the outskirts of village Falod, Taluka Waghodia, District Vadodara, which came to be acquired, @ Rs. 15/- per sq. mtr. 2. Certain lands of the appellants – claimants, more particularly described in their respective reference cases, came to be acquired for the public purpose of construction of Kundhala Branch of Narmada Canal and the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act [‘the Act’ for short] came to be published on 7/6/1984 and the notification under Section 6 of the Act was published on 24/10/1985. The Special Land Acquisition Officer conducted inquiry and under Section 11 of the Act, on 26/3/1987 the Special Land Acquisition Officer declared his award and offered by way of compensation, the amount @ Re.1/- per sq. mtr. The claimants felt that the amount offered to them was highly insufficient and inadequate and, therefore, applied for reference and their references were registered before the Reference Court as Land Reference Case Nos. 362 to 374 of 1989. The claimants claimed the compensation @ Rs. 30/- per sq. mtr. 3. Before the Reference Court, all the above reference cases came to be consolidated since all these cases arose out of the common award rendered by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. On behalf of the claimants, Parsotambhai Desaibhai Parmar came to be examined. On behalf of the respondent, two witnesses were examined, namely Mr. J.J. Bilwal at exh. 25 and Mr. D.M. Patel at exh. 29. So far as the documentary evidence is concerned, the claimants relied upon the award rendered in Land Reference Case No. 307 of 1989 and other allied matters pertaining to land of village Tavra, Taluka Waghodia, Dist. Vadodara. The Reference Court, appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, came to the conclusion that earlier award though can be made base for the fixation of just and fair amount of compensation, but observed that so far as the lands of village Tavra are concerned, in that case, the lands were irrigated; whereas in the instant case, the lands were non-irrigated. In the previous award regarding the land of village Tavra, though the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act was the same [dated 7/6/1984] and in the said case, the compensation was awarded to those claimants @ Rs. 20/- per sq.mtr., but since in the instant case, the lands, according to the Reference Court, were non-irrigated lands and, therefore, fixed the market price of the lands @ Rs. 15/- per sq. mtr. Since the Spl. Land Acquisition Officer had offered compensation @ Re.1/- per sq. mtr., the additional amount of compensation which was awarded by the Reference Court was @ Rs. 14/- per sq. mtr. The original claimants felt that the amount awarded by the Reference Court is inadequate and insufficient and, therefore, they preferred these appeals for enhancement of the amount of compensation. 4. Mr. KM Sheth, Ld. Counsel for the appellants submitted that though the Reference Court in the impugned judgment and award rightly relied upon the earlier award dated 25/7/2003 rendered in Land Reference Case No. 307 of 1989 and other allied land reference cases, but in the said award, the amount of compensation was determined by the Reference Court at the additional rate of Rs. 20/- per sq. mtr., and the Reference Court in the instant case should have awarded the compensation at the same rate. It is submitted that the claimants have adduced evidence to show that their lands are identical in fertility as well as in potentiality to the lands acquired pursuant to the comparable award of village Tavra. It is submitted that the Reference Court erred in coming to the conclusion that the lands under acquisition in the instant case were non-irrigated. The evidence adduced by the claimants clearly suggests that there was sufficient facility available for irrigation and though in revenue record the land under acquisition were described as non-irrigated lands, but in fact it was not so. In the result, it is submitted that the appellants claimants are entitled to the enhancement of the amount of compensation and the appeals may be allowed. 5. Per contra, Ms. Shachi Mathur, Ld. In the result, it is submitted that the appellants claimants are entitled to the enhancement of the amount of compensation and the appeals may be allowed. 5. Per contra, Ms. Shachi Mathur, Ld. AGP for the respondent – State vehemently opposed these appeals and submitted that the Reference Court rightly came to the conclusion that the claimants were not entitled to recover same amount of compensation which the Reference Court determined pursuant to award dated 25/7/2003 in Land Reference Case No. 307/1989 and allied reference cases regarding the lands of village Tavra. It is submitted that in the instant case, admittedly the lands were non-irrigated lands and the Reference Court, therefore, rightly determined the amount of compensation @ Rs. 15/- per sq. mtr. Therefore, it is submitted that the appeals may be dismissed. 6. Perusal of the impugned judgment and award would suggest that the Reference Court took into consideration the earlier award dated 25/7/2003 rendered by the Reference Court in Land Reference Case No. 307/1989 and other allied reference cases. The Reference Court, therefore, came to the conclusion that the said earlier award can be made base as in the said case, the notification under Section 4 of the Act was published on the same day i.e. dated 7/6/1984 and those lands were situated in village Tavra and in the instant case, the acquired lands were of village Falod. However, the Reference Court came to the conclusion that in the instant case, admittedly the lands of the claimants, which came to be acquired, were non-irrigated lands. Relying upon a decision rendered in the case of Kantaben Manibhai Amin vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Baroda reported in AIR 1990 SC p. 103, the Reference Court, therefore, came to the conclusion that in the comparable award the Reference Court had determined the amount of compensation for irrigated lands @ Rs. 20/- per sq. mtr.; whereas in the instant case the lands under acquisition were non-irrigated lands and, therefore, the claimants in the instant case, were entitled to get 25% less amount and accordingly the Reference Court determined the amount of compensation @ Rs. 15/- per sq. mtr. Mr. KM Sheth, Ld. 20/- per sq. mtr.; whereas in the instant case the lands under acquisition were non-irrigated lands and, therefore, the claimants in the instant case, were entitled to get 25% less amount and accordingly the Reference Court determined the amount of compensation @ Rs. 15/- per sq. mtr. Mr. KM Sheth, Ld. Counsel for the appellants – claimants submitted that the claimants adduced evidence to show that though their lands were non-irrigated lands described in the concerned revenue records, but in fact there was enough facility available to the lands of the claimants for irrigation. However, even if this submission is accepted at the first instance, yet the fact remains that the lands of the claimants were non-irrigated lands. 7. In light of the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the Reference Court did not commit any illegality or any factual error in coming to the conclusion that the claimants were entitled to get compensation @ Rs. 15/- per sq. mtr. In the result, the impugned judgment and award rendered by the Reference Court are not required to be interfered with in these appeals. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, under Section 11 of the Act, offered compensation @ Re. 1/- per sq.mtr., and the Reference Court, examining and evaluating the oral and documentary evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the claimants were entitled to recover just and fair compensation @ Rs. 15/- per sq. mtr., and accordingly awarded additional compensation of the non-irrigated lands of the appellants – claimants @ Rs. 14/- per sq.mtr. In the impugned judgment and award, the Reference Court awarded statutory increases to the claimants as contemplated under Section 23 [1A] as well as under Section 23 [2] of the Act and even the running interest came to be awarded as contemplated under Section 28 of the Act. The appeals, therefore, lack merits and deserve dismissal. 8. For the foregoing reasons, the appeals stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. P P P P P