Judgment Jayant Patel, J.—When the Civil Application for fixing early date of hearing of these First Appeals, is taken up for hearing, with the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for both the sides, the appeals are taken up for final hearing. 2. As all the appeals arise from the common judgment and award passed by the Reference Court, they are being considered by this common judgment. 3. The short facts of the case are that for the project of Adalwada Irrigation Scheme, the land at village Dudhamani, Taluka Dhanpur was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). The notification under Section 4 of the Act was published on 4.3.2004, whereas, the notification under Section 6 of the Act was published on 27.5.2004. The award was passed on 15.1.2005 by the Special Land Acquisition Officer and the compensation was awarded. However, as the said compensation was not satisfactory to the original land owners, they raised dispute under Section 18 of the Act, which came to be referred to the Reference Court for adjudication. The Reference Court, after hearing both the sides, awarded the compensation at Rs. 35/- per sq. mtrs. plus statutory benefits of solatium and increase of price as per Section 23(1-A) of the Act and the interest as per the statutory requirement. It is under these circumstances, the present appeals before this Court. 4. We have heard learned AGP Mr. Pranav Trivedi for the appellants and Mr. V.N. Raval learned advocate for the original claimants. 5. It is undisputed position that village Dudhamani at which lands were situated, is adjacent to village Adalwada. The lands were also acquired for the very project at village Adalwada and for the said lands also, the dispute was raised for compensation and the matters carried up to this Court in the proceedings of First Appeal No. 2168/2010 and allied matters, which came to be decided by this Court (Coram: Jayant Patel & Ms. Abhilasha Kumari, JJ.) on 2.8.2010 and as per the said decision, the compensation at Rs. 35/- per sq. meter is confirmed by this Court. 6. We may state that this Court in the above referred decision of First Appeal No. 2168/2010 and allied matters, inter alia, observed that: “4. Abhilasha Kumari, JJ.) on 2.8.2010 and as per the said decision, the compensation at Rs. 35/- per sq. meter is confirmed by this Court. 6. We may state that this Court in the above referred decision of First Appeal No. 2168/2010 and allied matters, inter alia, observed that: “4. The only contention raised on behalf of the Special Land Acquisition Officer by the learned Assistant Government Pleader is that the Reference Court ought not to have relied upon the decision of other Reference Court for acquisition of the land of Jalod taluka. He submitted that unless evidence was there on record to show that the present lands were just adjacent to the land of Reference Case No. 254 of 2004, in respect to the lands of Jalod Taluka, the reliance placed is erroneous, therefore, it would be a case for remand of the matter to the Reference Court for re-consideration. 5. The examination of the said contention shows that it is not the only matter where the Reference Court has not at all considered the other aspects. In order to assess the valuation of the land, broadly, three modes or the yardsticks are settled. One is of the sale instances, the another is, if any award or compensation is fixed by the competent Court in respect to the similar land or adjacent land and the third is yield method. On the aspect of the sale instances, the Reference Court has considered, but the said aspect is not given weightage on the ground that there was no evidence which led to the effect that there was voluntary sale and voluntary purchase and/or fertility of the land for which, the sale instances were shown. The sale deeds were also not produced. On the aspect of yield method, the claim was of Rs. 1,00,000/- per acre and the evidence, as was led on behalf of the claimants, was to the effect that the annual agricultural income from the land was Rs. 1,00,00/- per acre per year. Learned Judge, while appreciating the evidence, has not fully relied upon the said aspects and has assessed yearly income of approximately Rs. 30,000/- per acre. Out of the said amount, 50% is deducted towards expenses of the agriculture and net income assessed is Rs. 15,000/- per acre. 6. 1,00,00/- per acre per year. Learned Judge, while appreciating the evidence, has not fully relied upon the said aspects and has assessed yearly income of approximately Rs. 30,000/- per acre. Out of the said amount, 50% is deducted towards expenses of the agriculture and net income assessed is Rs. 15,000/- per acre. 6. The formula applied for capitalist value is 10 times of the annual income, therefore, the learned Judge has found that the market value would be considered as Rs. 1,50,000/- per acre. If the said finding of the learned Judge is considered per sq.meter, the value of the land would be Rs. 40 per sq.meter. It is in addition to the aforesaid finding, the learned Judge has relied upon the order of the Reference Court in Reference Case No. 254 of 2004 in respect to the other agricultural land of Jalod Taluka, wherein the additional compensation awarded was Rs. 35/-. The pertinent aspect is that, as stated by the learned Assistant Government Pleader, the said decision of the Reference Court in Reference Case No. 254 of 2004 has been confirmed by this Court in First Appeal No. 4073 of 2007 and allied matters vide order dated 17.8.2007. Another aspect which is required to be taken note of is that the Notification under Section 4 of the Act in that case was published on 22.1.2001 and the additional compensation awarded was Rs. 35 per sq.meter. If the appreciation, at the rate of 10% per annum, is considered from the date of the Notification under Section 4 of the Act, in that case and the date of the Notification under Section 4 of the Act in the present case, it would be approximately 30% more since there is a gap of about 3 years in between. In spite of the same, the learned Judge has not considered the appreciated value and has taken the base as was granted on the basis of the valuation assessed in the year 2001 at Rs. 35/- per sq.meter. In spite of the same, the learned Judge has not considered the appreciated value and has taken the base as was granted on the basis of the valuation assessed in the year 2001 at Rs. 35/- per sq.meter. Under these circumstances, we find that the contention that unless the land of Taluka Jalod, which was subject matter of Reference Case No. 254 of 2004 was adjacent to the land in question, the Reference Court could not have relied upon the decision of the earlier award passed in respect to the land of Taluka Jalod, which would not only lose its importance but considering the case in either way, may be on the basis of the yield method or may be on the basis of the compensation fixed for similar land, it is not possible to accept the contention that the additional compensation awarded can be said to be unfair or improper.” 7. If the reasons recorded by the reference Court is considered in light of the aforesaid observations made by this Court for acquisition of the lands at village Adalwada, it is not possible for us to take a different view. 8. The attempt was made by the learned AGP for the appellant to contend that there was distance of about 60 kilometers from the land which was covered in Land Reference Case No. 254 of 2004, pertaining to Jhalod Taluka, which is considered as a basis by the Reference Court in the present matter. 9. We may record that the similar contention came to be raised by the learned AGP in respect of the acquisition of lands for the same project at village Nalu in the proceedings of First Appeal No. 5244/2010 and allied matters, decided on 25.2.2011. It may be recorded that village Nalu is on the otherside of village Adalwada and in the said group of First Appeal No. 5244/2010, while dealing with the said contention, this Court observed, thus: “9. We are araid such can be considered in view of the aforesaid decision of this Court. Same fact situation prevailed in the earlier matter of First Appeal No. 2168 of 2010 and even though there was distance of about 60 kilometers from the land covered by Reference case No. 254 of 2004, this Court accepted the compensation for the land of village Adalwada having found that no error has been committed by the Reference Court. Same fact situation prevailed in the earlier matter of First Appeal No. 2168 of 2010 and even though there was distance of about 60 kilometers from the land covered by Reference case No. 254 of 2004, this Court accepted the compensation for the land of village Adalwada having found that no error has been committed by the Reference Court. On the contrary, if the appreciation is to be considered as it is, as observed in the above referred judgment and reproduced hereinabove, it could be 30% more in comparison to the land located at Taluka Jhalod, whereas, such appreciation was not given by the Reference Court in the said matter for the land at village Adalwada and such has also not been given in the present matter. Therefore, even if that aspect is considered, it would not lead us to take a different view than the view taken in First Appeal No. 2168 of 2010 and allied matters.” 10. The same view deserves to be taken in the present matters. It appears that the reference Court has awarded compensation of Rs. 35/- per sq. meter at par with the view taken by this Court and, therefore, all the appeals are meritless and, therefore, dismissed. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. P P P P P