Judgment J.C. Upadhyaya, J.—These three appeals arise out of the common judgment and award dated 30/1/1989 rendered by the Ld. District Judge, Surat, in Land Reference Case Nos. 138, 139 and 140 of 1986, whereby the Reference Court determined the amount of compensation @ Rs. 500/- per sq. mtr., regarding the open land and so far as structure and construction on the acquired land is concerned, the Reference Court awarded Rs. 35,000/- in Land Reference Case No. 138/1986, Rs. 23,000/- in Land Reference Case No. 139/1986 and Rs. 25,000/- in Land Reference Case No. 140/1986 respectively. The statutory increases as contemplated under Section 23 [2] of the Land Acquisition Act [for short ‘the Act’] regarding 30% solatium was granted and the interest as provided under Section 28 of the Act was also granted. The Reference Court further directed that the amount already paid by the acquiring body shall be deducted. 2. Certain immovable properties consisting of lands and superstructures situated in the area Soni Faliya, Pani Ni Bhit, Ward No. 10 in Surat City, came to be acquired. In Land Reference Case No. 138/1986, the land along with superstructure admeasuring 26-10-87 sq. mtrs., of Nondh No. 421 and the land along with superstructure admeasuring 27-58-23 sq. mtrs., of Nondh No. 422 belonging to the claimant of said Reference Case came to be acquired. In Land Reference Case No. 139/1986, the land along with superstructure admeasuring 14-21-42 sq. mtrs., of Nondh No. 424 belonging to the claimant of said case came to be acquired and in Land Reference Case No. 140/1986, the land along with superstructure admeasuring 24-24-78 sq. mtrs., of Nondh No. 420 belonging to the claimant of said case came to be acquired. 3. The notification under Section 4 of the Act was published on 5/6/1973 and the notification under Section 6 was published on 6/5/1976. The Special Land Acquisition Officer conducted the inquiry and by his award dated 24/2/1984 under Section 11 of the Act, offered the amount of compensation to the claimant @ Rs. 350/- per sq. mtr. So far as superstructures were concerned, the Special Land Acquisition Officer offered Rs. 18,953/- to the claimants of Land Reference Case No. 138/1986, Rs. 6,473/- to the claimants of Land Reference Case No. 139/1986 and Rs. 13,005/- to the claimants of Land Reference Case No. 140/1986 respectively. 350/- per sq. mtr. So far as superstructures were concerned, the Special Land Acquisition Officer offered Rs. 18,953/- to the claimants of Land Reference Case No. 138/1986, Rs. 6,473/- to the claimants of Land Reference Case No. 139/1986 and Rs. 13,005/- to the claimants of Land Reference Case No. 140/1986 respectively. The claimants felt that the amount of compensation offered by the Special Land Acquisition Officer regarding their lands and superstructures thereon was quite inadequate and insufficient and, therefore, they applied for references and their references were numbered and registered as Land Reference Cases Nos. 138, 139 and 140 of 1986. The claimants claimed compensation @ Rs. 1,000/- per sq. mtr. 4. Since all these three reference cases arose out of a common award rendered by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, these three reference cases came to be consolidated and common evidence was recorded. The claimants examined themselves as well as examined a buyer of one property situated in the same street named Krushnarao Pavar as their witness. The claimants also examined an Architect Engineer named Mahendrakumar Nemchand as their witness. The claimants produced necessary documentary evidence like comparable sale instance and valuation reports, plan, etc. On behalf of the opponent – State, no oral evidence was adduced. 5. The Reference Court, after evaluating and appreciating the evidence on record and more particularly relying upon the evidence of witness Mahendrakumar Nemchand examined by the claimants at Exh. 36, came to the conclusion that the claimants were entitled to claim just and reasonable amount of compensation @ Rs. 500/- per sq. mtr. The Reference Court further came to the conclusion that the amount of compensation awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer towards the superstructures was insufficient and inadequate and, therefore, so far as the claimant in Land Reference Case No. 138/1986 is concerned, the Reference Court awarded Rs. 35,000/-, for claimant in Land Reference Case No. 138/1986; awarded Rs. 23,000/-, for the claimant in Land Reference Case No. 139/1986; and awarded Rs. 25,000/- for claimant in Land Reference Case No. 140/1986. Before the Reference Court, the claimant had examined witness Krushnarao Pavar at Exh. 47 in connection with a comparable sale instance Exh. 35,000/-, for claimant in Land Reference Case No. 138/1986; awarded Rs. 23,000/-, for the claimant in Land Reference Case No. 139/1986; and awarded Rs. 25,000/- for claimant in Land Reference Case No. 140/1986. Before the Reference Court, the claimant had examined witness Krushnarao Pavar at Exh. 47 in connection with a comparable sale instance Exh. 49 to bring on record the evidence that the aforesaid sale transaction took place on 20/10/1972 regarding a land and superstructure thereon situated in the same street Soni Faliya and the sale transaction was consisting of property admeasuring 48.17 sq. mtrs., and the amount of consideration was Rs. 44,999/- and accordingly it is submitted that it comes to Rs. 750/- per sq. mtr. In Para. 15 in the impugned judgment and award, the Reference Court discussed the evidence of this witness Krushnarao Pavar. However, to discard his evidence, it appears that in the impugned judgment and award, the Reference Court has not assigned any reason. However, as stated above, the Reference Court determined the amount of compensation on the basis of the evidence of Architect Engineer, namely Mahendrakumar Nemchand examined at Exh. 36 and valuation reports exhs. 39 and 40. The claimants felt that even the amount awarded by way of compensation to them by the Reference Court is insufficient and inadequate and, therefore, preferred these appeals. Since these appeals arise out of a common judgment and award rendered by the Reference Court, these appeals are heard together and are being disposed by this common judgment and order. 6. Mr. S N Shelat, Ld. Senior Counsel with Ms. V D Nanavati, Ld. Advocate for the appellants – claimants submitted that the impugned judgment and award rendered by the Reference Court is contrary to law and evidence on record. It is submitted that before the Reference Court, cogent evidence was adduced by the claimant in form of sale instance to show that the claimants were entitled to claim compensation @ Rs. 750/- per sq. mtr., but without assigning any reason the Reference Court discarded said evidence. It is further submitted that when such primary evidence was available with the Reference Court, the Reference Court should not have relied upon any opinion evidence, namely the evidence of Architect. Even in the impugned judgment and award, no reason is assigned by the Reference Court as to why the direct evidence is discarded and opinion evidence is accepted. 6.1. It is further submitted that when such primary evidence was available with the Reference Court, the Reference Court should not have relied upon any opinion evidence, namely the evidence of Architect. Even in the impugned judgment and award, no reason is assigned by the Reference Court as to why the direct evidence is discarded and opinion evidence is accepted. 6.1. Mr. S N Shelat, Ld. Sr. Counsel further submitted that even considering the opinion evidence adduced by the Architect, the Architect prepared a report on the basis of certain earlier sale instances and even considering the report and his evidence, the consideration amount varies from property to property. As against that, the sale instance contained in the comparable sale-deed Exh. 49 pertained to the property consisting of land and superstructure and it was situated just adjacent to the property acquired and the said sale transaction took place in the year 1972 i.e. a year earlier to the publication of notification under sec. 4 as well as pursuant to the sale-deed Exh. 49, the claimants examined the buyer Krushnarao Pavar at Exh. 47. It is submitted that so far as the sale instances relied upon by the expert witness, in connection with those sale instances, neither the vendor nor the buyer were examined. It is, therefore, submitted that in the aforesaid background, the Reference Court should have preferred the evidence regarding the comparable sale instance Exh. 49 than the opinion evidence. It is, therefore, submitted that the Reference Court should have awarded just and reasonable amount of compensation @ Rs. 750/- per sq. mtr. 6.2. Mr. S N Shelat, Ld. Sr. Counsel asserted that in the impugned judgment and award, though the Reference Court granted certain statutory increases, namely solatium at 30% under Section 23 [2] of the Act as well as running interest as provided under Section 28 of the Act, but the additional benefit at 12% as provided under Section 23 [1A] of the Act has not been granted. That thus, the Reference Court committed error of law. It is submitted that in the instant case, the notification under Section 4 of the Act came to be published on 5/6/1973 and the award by the Special Land Acquisition Officer under Section 11 of the Act came to be published on 24/2/1984. However, the actual possession was taken on 23/5/1996. That thus, the Reference Court committed error of law. It is submitted that in the instant case, the notification under Section 4 of the Act came to be published on 5/6/1973 and the award by the Special Land Acquisition Officer under Section 11 of the Act came to be published on 24/2/1984. However, the actual possession was taken on 23/5/1996. It is submitted that in the above view of the matter, the claimants were entitled to the statutory benefit as contemplated under Section 23 [1A] of the Act from the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act till the date of the award of the Special Land Acquisition Officer, as that eventuality occurred prior to the date of taking over the possession. 6.3. Mr. S N Shelat, Ld. Sr. Counsel asserted that the acquired properties are very small in area and the appellants claimants have established that they are entitled to claim reasonable amount of compensation @ Rs. 750/- per sq. mtr., as well as the claimants are entitled to get statutory benefit as contemplated under Section 23 [1A] of the Act and, therefore, it is submitted that the impugned judgment and award rendered by the Reference Court deserve to be modified accordingly. However, it is submitted that so far as the compensation amount awarded to the appellants claimants by the Reference Court qua their superstructure is concerned, the appellants claimants have no grievance. Resultantly, it is submitted that these three appeals may be allowed accordingly. 7. Per contra, Ms. Mathur, Ld. AGP for the respondent – State opposed these appeals and submitted that the Reference Court has rightly relied upon the relevant evidence adduced by the parties and rightly came to the conclusion that the claimants were entitled to claim compensation @ Rs. 500/- per sq. mtr. It is submitted that the Reference Court relied upon the evidence of the expert examined by the claimants themselves. Therefore, the Reference Court has not committed any error or any illegality in relying upon the set of evidence adduced by the claimants themselves. 7.1. Ms. Mathur, Ld. 500/- per sq. mtr. It is submitted that the Reference Court relied upon the evidence of the expert examined by the claimants themselves. Therefore, the Reference Court has not committed any error or any illegality in relying upon the set of evidence adduced by the claimants themselves. 7.1. Ms. Mathur, Ld. AGP further submitted that there is no dispute that in the impugned judgment and award, the Reference Court has granted certain statutory increases, namely solatium under Section 23 [2] of the Act and the running interest as provided under Section 28 of the Act, but did not grant benefit under Section 23 [1A] of the Act and thereby it cannot be said that the Reference Court has committed any error of law. It is submitted that in fact, the claimants are not entitled to claim the benefit as provided under Section 23 [1A] of the Act. 7.2. Ultimately, it is submitted that these appeals may be dismissed. 8. I have examined the record and proceedings in context with the submissions advanced by the rival side. 9. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the properties being land and superstructure thereon of the appellants claimants came to be acquired. As detailed above in this judgment, the properties were small properties situated in Soni Faliya in the City of Surat. Out of the acquired lands, the smallest piece of land consist of admeasuring about 15 sq. mtrs., and comparatively larger plot consist of about 28 sq. mtrs. 10. Perusing the evidence on record, so also the reasonings assigned by the Reference Court in the impugned judgment and award, it transpires that the Reference Court placed absolute reliance upon the evidence of witness Mahendrakumar Nemchand examined at Exh. 36 and the reports prepared by the witness produced at exhs. 39 and 40. Perusing his evidence, it transpires that he was Architect Engineer and he considered certain sale instances while preparing his reports. It appears that he took into consideration the sale instances of the properties bearing Nondh No. 10/1122, Nondh No. 10/428 as well as Nondh No. 10/963 and perusing his evidence, it transpires that the rate per square meter varied from property to property. It appears that he took into consideration the sale instances of the properties bearing Nondh No. 10/1122, Nondh No. 10/428 as well as Nondh No. 10/963 and perusing his evidence, it transpires that the rate per square meter varied from property to property. It is pertinent to note that considering the evidence of this witness, as discussed by the Reference Court in the impugned judgment and award, nothing transpires that this witness took into consideration the earlier sale instance Exh. 49. Moreover, perusing the evidence of this expert witness, it transpires that he took into consideration the area of the properties and the amount of consideration and then from the total amount of consideration, he deducted the amount [value] of the superstructure on that property. No cogent and clear datas are assigned by this witness as to how and on what basis he determined the value of the superstructure, which ultimately he deducted from the total amount of consideration referred in the relevant sale-deed. 11. As against the opinion evidence adduced by this witness Mahendrakumar Nemchand, if the evidence of witness Krushnarao Pavar Exh. 47 is considered, he was the buyer of the property for which the sale deed came to be executed on 20/10/1972 and the property is situated in Soni Faliya itself. According to his evidence, he paid Rs. 44,999/- towards the consideration of the property. He clearly stated that the total area of the property is 68.58 sq. mtrs., and out of it, he purchased 48.17 sq. mtrs of land. During the course of his evidence, the sale deed dated 20/10/1972 came to be proved at Exh. 49. Mr. Shelat, Ld. Sr. Counsel for the appellants claimants submitted that considering the rate contained in the sale-deed Exh. 49, so also considering the evidence of Krushnarao Pavar, it comes to Rs. 750/- per sq. mtr. 12. Perusing the impugned judgment and award rendered by the Reference Court, no-where any reason is assigned as to why the evidence of witness Krushnarao Pavar Exh. 47 and the sale-deed Exh. 49 came to be discarded. As stated above, the Reference Court predominantly relied upon the evidence of witness Mahendrakumar Nemchand. 750/- per sq. mtr. 12. Perusing the impugned judgment and award rendered by the Reference Court, no-where any reason is assigned as to why the evidence of witness Krushnarao Pavar Exh. 47 and the sale-deed Exh. 49 came to be discarded. As stated above, the Reference Court predominantly relied upon the evidence of witness Mahendrakumar Nemchand. However, I need not repeat here the evidence of this witness again, but suffice it to say that his evidence suffers from certain irregularities as no cogent and complete datas are available in his evidence as to how he ascertained the valuation of the superstructure, which amount ultimately he deducted from the amount of consideration of different sale-deeds relied upon by him. Over and above this, in connection with those sale-deeds referred to by this witness, neither vendor nor any buyer came to be examined. As against such opinion evidence, the claimants adduced direct evidence of buyer Krushnarao Pavar of a property which was situated in Soni Faliya itself where the acquired properties were situated. This Court is, therefore, of the opinion that the Reference Court committed serious error in discarding the evidence of Krushnarao Pavar Exh. 47 and the sale instance Exh. 49. 13. In the above view of the matter, the Reference Court should have awarded just and fair amount of compensation to the appellants – claimants @ Rs. 750/- per sq. mtr., instead of Rs. 500/- per sq. mtr. So far as the amount awarded by the Reference Court pertaining to the superstructures on the acquired lands of the claimants is concerned, no grievance is ventilated by the appellants claimants. In the impugned judgment and award, the Reference Court awarded certain statutory increases, namely solatium under Section 23 [2] of the Act and running interest provided under Section 28 of the Act. However, the Reference Court did not grant the statutory increase consisting of the amount calculated at 12% as provided under Section 23 [1A] of the Act. 14. In the above context, first of all the bare perusal of the impugned judgment and award of the Reference Court reveals that no reason is assigned for denial of the benefit of the statutory increase under Section 23 [1A] of the Act to the claimants. In the instant case, the notification under Section 4 of the Act was published on 5/6/1973. In the instant case, the notification under Section 4 of the Act was published on 5/6/1973. The award by the Special Land Acquisition Officer was declared on 24/2/1984. Under such circumstances, referring to Section 30 [1] of the Act of 68 of 1984 regarding application of the provisions of the amendment Act, it can safely be said that on 30/4/1982 the lis was pending as the notification under Section 4 of the Act was published on 5/6/1973 and the award by the Collector was declared on 24/2/1984. Therefore, it can further be said that the lis was pending between 30/4/1982 and 24/2/1984. Mr. Shelat, Ld. Sr. Counsel relied upon a decision rendered in the case of Sarup Singh vs. Union of India reported in JT 2010 [13] SC 69, wherein, discussing the provisions contained in Section 30[1] and 30[2] of the Act of 68 of 1984 and relying upon certain earlier decisions, the Hon’ble Apex Court came to the conclusion that the event, namely the lis should be pending on 30/4/1982. At the cost of repetition, in the instant case Section 4 notification was published on 5/6/1973 and the award by the Collector was declared on 24/2/1984 and, therefore, the acquisition proceedings can be said to have been pending on 30/4/1982. Further more, when the Reference Court had already granted benefit under sections 23[2] as well as 28 of the Act, the claimants were entitled to the statutory increase as provided under Section 23 [1A] of the Act. 15. In the above view of the matter, just and fair amount of compensation which the appellants claimants are entitled to get, would be @ Rs. 750/- per sq. mtr. In the instant case, the Reference Court granted the compensation @ Rs. 500/- per sq. mtr. The Special Land Acquisition Officer offered the compensation @ Rs. 350/- per sq. mtr. In the result, the amount already awarded to the appellants claimants shall have to be deducted. Over and above this, the appellants claimants are held to be entitled to statutory addition being the amount as calculated @ 12% p.a on such market value as provided under Section 23 [1A] of the Act. In the instant case, the notification under Section 4 of the Act was published on 5/6/1973 and the award by the Collector was declared on 24/2/1984 and the possession was taken on 23/5/1996. In the instant case, the notification under Section 4 of the Act was published on 5/6/1973 and the award by the Collector was declared on 24/2/1984 and the possession was taken on 23/5/1996. Therefore, as provided under Section 23 [1A] of the Act, the claimants shall be entitled to recover the said amount commencing from 5/6/1973 to 24/2/1984 as the award was passed prior to taking over the actual possession of the acquired lands. 16. For the foregoing reasons, the appeals are partly allowed. The impugned judgment and award dated 30/1/1989 rendered by the Ld. Assistant Judge, Surat in Land Reference Cases Nos. 138 to 140 of 1986 are hereby modified. The appellants claimants are held to be entitled to recover compensation of their acquired properties @ Rs. 750/- per sq. mtr. They are also entitled to recover statutory increase as provided under Section 23 [1A] of the Land Acquisition Act. The amount already awarded to the appellants claimants by the Reference Court as well as by the Special Land Acquisition Officer shall have to be deducted from the aforesaid amount of compensation determined by this Court. The rest of the impugned judgment and award rendered by the Reference Court shall remain intact and are not interfered with. There shall be no order as to costs. P P P P P