Judgment J.C. Upadhyaya, J.—All these appeals arise out of the common impugned judgment and award dated 19/6/2008 rendered by the Ld. Presiding Officer, F.T.C. No. 1, Mehsana, [for short ‘the Reference Court’], in Land Reference Case No. 965 to 974 of 2004 [Main LA.R. No. 965/2004], whereby the Reference Court awarded additional amount of compensation to the respondents – claimants @ Rs. 71-50 ps., per sq.mtr. The Reference Court also awarded statutory additional amount as provided under section 23[1-A] of the Land Acquisition Act [for short ‘the Act’] as well as solatium under section 23[2] of the Act. The Reference Court also awarded running interest as contemplated under section 28 of the Act. The appellants, who were opponents in the said Land Reference Cases have preferred these appeals. The respondents are original claimants in the aforesaid land reference case. 2. Certain agricultural lands belonging to the respondents – claimants, situated in the outskirts of village Chhattiyarda, Taluka & District Mehsana, came to be acquired for the public purpose of “Dharoi Canal Project”. The lands, which were acquired belonging to the respondents – claimants, are described in detail in Para 4 of the impugned judgment and award. Notification under section 4 of the Act was published on 24/12/2002 and the notification under section 6 of the Act was published on 3/6/2003. The Special Land Acquisition Officer conducted inquiry in L.A.Q. Case No. 88/2002 to determine just and fair amount of compensation and delivered his award under section 11 of the Act on 2/7/2003 and offered the compensation @ Rs. 8-50 ps., per sq.mtr., to the claimants. The respondents - claimants felt that the amount offered by way of compensation to them was grossly inadequate and insufficient and, therefore, they applied for references and their references were numbered and registered as Land Acquisition Reference Case Nos. 965 to 974 of 2004 and they claimed compensation @ Rs. 200/- per sq.mtr. Since all these reference cases arose out of common award rendered by the Special Land Acquisition Officer in L.A.Q. Case No. 88/2002, all these reference cases were consolidated and common evidence was recorded. On behalf of the respondents – claimants, one claimant – Bahelim Imankha Sherkha came to be examined at exh. 14. The claimants produced extract of revenue records regarding their lands as well as produced copies of previous awards pertaining to the lands of village Motidau, Pala Vasna and Vishod. On behalf of the respondents – claimants, one claimant – Bahelim Imankha Sherkha came to be examined at exh. 14. The claimants produced extract of revenue records regarding their lands as well as produced copies of previous awards pertaining to the lands of village Motidau, Pala Vasna and Vishod. The Reference Court, evaluating the oral and documentary evidence on record and especially relying upon the comparable awards, observed that perusing the comparable awards regarding lands of different villages relied upon by the claimants, the compensation which came to be awarded was ranging from Rs. 50/- Rs. 180/- and Rs. 240/- per sq.mtr., respectively. The Reference Court, therefore, came to the conclusion that in the instant case, the respondents – claimants were entitled to recover additional amount of compensation @ Rs. 71-50 ps., per sq.mtr. The Special Land Acquisition Officer and the Executive Engineer, Dharoi Canal, who were opponents in the reference cases, felt that the amount awarded by way of compensation by the Reference Court to the respondents – claimants was excessive and exorbitant and, therefore, filed these appeals. 2.1. In these appeals, the above referred civil applications came to be filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure [for short ‘the C.P.C.’] seeking permission to produce additional evidence. By means of filing these civil applications, the appellants prayed that they may be permitted to produce in these appeals a map as well as a copy of judgment and award dated 7/3/2001 rendered by the Ld. Extra Assistant Judge, Mehsana in L.A.Q. Case Nos. 2139 to 2142 of 1996. As agreed by both the sides, these civil applications are ordered to be heard and disposed of along with these appeals. 3. Ms. Shachi Mathur, Ld. AGP representing the appellants submitted that the impugned judgment and award rendered by the Reference Court are contrary to law and facts on record. Ms. Mathur read over the relevant Paras., from the impugned judgment and award and submitted that the Reference Court did not properly deal with the previous awards produced before the Reference Court and without assigning any reasons, came to the conclusion that the market value of the lands acquired can conveniently be determined to be Rs. 80/- per sq.mtr., and accordingly awarded Rs. 71-50 ps. Per sq.mtr. As additional amount of compensation. 80/- per sq.mtr., and accordingly awarded Rs. 71-50 ps. Per sq.mtr. As additional amount of compensation. It is submitted that the impugned judgment and award rendered by the Reference Court, are without any reasons and deserve to be set aside. 3.1. Ms. Mathur, Ld. AGP submitted that by way of additional evidence, the appellants have produced a map and if this map is considered, village Pala Vasna is fare in distance from village Chhatiyarda, where the lands of the claimants are situated. It is further submitted that considering the second additional evidence in the form of comparable award dated 7/3/2001 passed in L.A.R. Case Nos. 2139 to 2142 of 1996, it clearly transpires that in said case, certain lands of village Motidau, Taluka District Mehsana, came to be acquired and in said case, notification under section 4 of the Act was published on 07/3/1991. In the said case, the Reference Court awarded additional amount of compensation @ Rs. 9-20 ps. Per sq.mtr. In the said case, the Special Land Acquisition Officer had awarded Rs. 1-80 ps. Per sq.mtr., and thus, the Reference Court determined the market value of the acquired lands of Motidau @ Rs. 11/- per sq.mtr. It is submitted that it is true that in the instant case, the notification under section 4 of the Act was published on 24/12/2002; whereas in the award dated 7/3/2001 passed by the Reference Court regarding the lands of Motidau, the notification under section 4 of the Act was published on 7/3/1991 and thus there was a time gap of 10 years between the two dates and even if the formula of appreciation in value of land @ 10% p.a., is adopted, yet in the instant case, the Reference Court should have awarded compensation at the most @ Rs. 22/- per sq.mtr. It is, therefore, submitted that on every respect, these appeals deserve to be allowed and the impugned judgment and award rendered by the Reference Court deserve to be set aside. 4. Per contra, Mr. AV Prajapati, Ld. Advocate for the respondents – claimants supported the impugned judgment and award rendered by the Reference Court and submitted that though as per the comparable awards produced by the claimants before the Reference Court, the claimants were entitled to recover more amount by way of compensation than what was awarded to them by the Reference Court. AV Prajapati, Ld. Advocate for the respondents – claimants supported the impugned judgment and award rendered by the Reference Court and submitted that though as per the comparable awards produced by the claimants before the Reference Court, the claimants were entitled to recover more amount by way of compensation than what was awarded to them by the Reference Court. It is submitted that if the copy of award dated 7/3/2001 produced by the appellants in this appeal as an additional evidence is considered, the said award pertains to acquisition of certain agricultural lands of village Motidau. It is submitted that it is true that in the award dated 7/3/2001, the Reference Court fixed the market value of the acquired lands of village Motidau at Rs. 11/- per sq.mtr. Mr. Prajapati submitted that before the Reference Court, the claimants relied upon one another previous award of the Reference Court dated 28/10/2005 rendered in L.A.R. Case No. 5364/2003 regarding the acquisition of lands of village Motidau itself and in the said award, the Reference Court came to the conclusion that the claimants in said reference case, were entitled to recover compensation @ Rs. 240/- per sq.mtr. It is submitted that if the judgment rendered by the Reference Court on 28/10/2005 is considered, the notification under section 4 of the Act regarding acquisition of lands of village Motidau was published on 16/12/2000. It is, therefore, submitted that in the instant case, the notification under section 4 of the Act was published after about 2 years i.e. on 24/12/2002. Therefore, as a matter of fact, the respondents – claimants were entitled to recover compensation at the rate more than Rs. 240/- per sq.mtr. 4.1. Mr. Prajapati, Learned Advocate for the respondents – claimants further submitted that when the appellants relied upon the comparable award of village Motidau itself by way of additional evidence and considering the map produced by the appellants by way of additional evidence, the boundaries of both the villages, namely Chhattiyarda and Motidau are adjoining to each other and, therefore, in these appeals when the appellant – State relies upon comparable award of village Motidau, now the appellant cannot be heard to say that the previous award pertaining to the acquisition of lands of village Motidau cannot be said to be comparable award. Mr. Mr. Prajapati, therefore, submitted that the award dated 7/3/2001 relied upon by the appellants of village Motidau cannot be taken into consideration since in said case the notification under section 4 of the Act was published 10 years prior to the date of publication of notification in the instant case as well as thereafter in the year 2005 the Reference Court itself awarded compensation @ Rs. 240/- per sq.mtr., and thus before the Reference Court the claimants produced the latest award pertaining to the acquisition of the lands of village Motidau and the same may be considered. Therefore, it is submitted that the appeals may be dismissed. 5. I have examined the record and proceedings in context with the submissions made by the rival side. 6. Bare perusal of the impugned judgment and award rendered by the Reference Court as well as considering the record and proceedings, it transpires that the claimants before the Reference Court relied upon certain previous awards of different villages. The Reference Court also discussed and dealt with those previous awards, more particularly in Paras 15 to 19. The Reference Court, examining the previous awards, came to the conclusion that in the previous awards of different villages, the Reference Court has granted compensation ranging from @ Rs. 50/-, Rs. 180/- and Rs. 240/- per sq.mtr., respectively. The Reference Court thereafter came to the conclusion that the claimants were entitled to recover compensation @ Rs. 80/- per sq.mtr. Since the Special Land Acquisition Officer offered compensation @ Rs. 8-50 ps., per sq.mtr., the Reference Court observed that the claimants were entitled to recover additional amount of compensation @ Rs. 71-50 ps., per sq.mtr. However, it is true that the Reference Court, while arriving at such conclusion, did not discuss in detail, the reasons as to why said amount of compensation awarded by it was found to be just and adequate. However, in the instant case, the documents, which the Reference Court relied upon are already available on record together with oral evidence of one of the claimants. When such evidence is already available on record, I am of the opinion that all these reference cases may not be required to be remanded back to the Reference Court just for writing reasoned judgment by the Reference Court. 7. I have examined the 3 previous awards relied upon by the claimants before the Reference Court. When such evidence is already available on record, I am of the opinion that all these reference cases may not be required to be remanded back to the Reference Court just for writing reasoned judgment by the Reference Court. 7. I have examined the 3 previous awards relied upon by the claimants before the Reference Court. Award dated 28/10/2005 rendered by the Reference Court in Land Reference Case No. 5364/2003 came to be relied upon, wherein certain agricultural land of village Motidau came to be acquired and the notification under section 4 of the Act was published on 16/12/2000. In the said matter, the Reference Court determined the amount of compensation @ Rs. 240/- per sq.mtr. 8. The second previous award, which came to be produced before the Reference Court, is dated 23/7/1997 rendered by the Reference Court in Land Reference Case Nos. 209 to 239 of 1988, whereby regarding acquisition of certain lands situated at village Pala Vasna, the Reference Court determined the amount of compensation @ Rs. 50/- per sq.mtr. In that case, the notification under section 4 of the Act was published on 27/5/1982. 9. The third previous award produced before the Reference Court is award dated 2/9/2005 passed by the Reference Court in Land Reference Case Nos. 947 to 957 of 2003, wherein certain lands of village Vishod, Taluka Unjha, District Mehsana, came to be acquired vide notification dated 26/12/2002. In said matter, the Reference Court determined the amount of compensation @ Rs. 180/- per sq.mtr. 10. During the pendency of these appeals, the appellant – State filed applications under Order 41 Rule 27 of the C.P.C., seeking permission for production of additional evidence. As stated above, with the consent of both the parties, said applications are heard and decided along with these appeals. By way of additional evidence, the appellants produced a copy of previous award dated 7/3/2001 passed in L.A.R. Case Nos. 2139 to 2142 of 1996 pertaining to the acquisition of certain lands of village Motidau. In the said matter, the notification under section 4 of the Act was published on 7/3/1991. The Reference Court fixed the additional amount of compensation @ Rs. 9-20 ps., per sq.mtr. In the said case, the Special Land Acquisition Officer had awarded compensation @ Rs. 2139 to 2142 of 1996 pertaining to the acquisition of certain lands of village Motidau. In the said matter, the notification under section 4 of the Act was published on 7/3/1991. The Reference Court fixed the additional amount of compensation @ Rs. 9-20 ps., per sq.mtr. In the said case, the Special Land Acquisition Officer had awarded compensation @ Rs. 1-80 ps., per sq.mtr., and, therefore, on behalf of the appellants, it is submitted that the Reference Court determined the amount of compensation at Rs. 11/- per sq.mtr., and in the instant case, said award is applicable. The appellants have also produced map by way of additional evidence to show that the boundaries of villages Chhattiyarda and Motidau are common and both these villages are situated adjacent to each other. Under such circumstances, so far as the comparable award of village Motidau is concerned, it can safely be said that even according to the appellants, the same can be considered as a base. Now the award produced by the appellants is dated 7/3/2001. It is true that in the said matter, the notification under section 4 of the Act was published in the year 1991 and in the instant matter, said notification was published after about 10 years in the year 2002. On behalf of the appellants, it is submitted that considering the formula of appreciation of the value in the land @ 10% p.a., in the instant case the maximum amount of compensation, which the Reference Court should have granted, would be at the most @ Rs. 22/- per sq.mtr. 11. It is pertinent to note that even before the Reference Court, the claimants relied upon previous award pertaining to the lands of village Motidau itself. As stated above, the claimants relied upon previous award dated 28/10/2005 passed in L.A.R. Case No. 5364/2003, wherein the Reference Court determined the just and fair amount of compensation pertaining to the acquisition of lands of village Motidau @ Rs. 240/- per sq.mtr. In the said case, the notification under section 4 of the Act was published on 16/12/2000, namely two years before the date of notification published in the instant case. The previous award of village Motidau relied upon by the claimants is later in point of time than the previous award of village Motidau relied upon by the appellants by way of additional evidence. The previous award of village Motidau relied upon by the claimants is later in point of time than the previous award of village Motidau relied upon by the appellants by way of additional evidence. Even the time gap between the dates of publication of notification under section 4 of the Act pertaining to the previous award dated 28/10/2005 and in the instant case, is comparatively less than the time gap between the dates of notification under section 4 of the Act in the award of village Motidau produced by the appellants by way of additional evidence. It is further pertinent to note that even in the impugned judgment and award, the Reference Court did take the note that considering the comparable awards produced by the claimants, the amount of compensation ranges from Rs. 50/-, Rs. 180/- and Rs. 240/- per sq.mtr., respectively. The Reference Court, therefore, did consider that in the earlier award regarding the lands of Motidau, the Reference Court itself had earlier granted compensation @ Rs. 240/- per sq.mtr. In the above view of the matter, the Reference Court did not err in relying upon comparable latest award of village Motidau. Under such circumstances, when there is no dispute that the previous award pertaining to the lands of village Motidau can safely be relied upon and in light of the above discussion, it can safely be said that the claimants could have claimed that they should have been awarded the amount of compensation at-least at the same rate, to which the claimants in L.A.R No. 5364/2003 received the compensation by award dated 28/10/2005. But in the instant case, the Reference Court fixed the amount of compensation @ Rs. 80/- per sq.mtr., inclusive of the amount already awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. Under such circumstances, this Court does not find any justifiable ground to come to the conclusion that the Reference Court awarded excessive and exorbitant amount of compensation to the claimants. There is, therefore, no justifiable ground to interfere with the impugned judgment and award. When such is the situation, the appeals are found devoid of any merit and deserve dismissal. 12. Since this Court took into consideration and relied upon and referred the additional evidence sought to be produced by the appellants, the civil applications deserve to be allowed. There is, therefore, no justifiable ground to interfere with the impugned judgment and award. When such is the situation, the appeals are found devoid of any merit and deserve dismissal. 12. Since this Court took into consideration and relied upon and referred the additional evidence sought to be produced by the appellants, the civil applications deserve to be allowed. However, on merits, as discussed above, all these appeals deserve to be dismissed and they are accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.