Judgment J.C. Upadhyaya, J.—The challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and award dated 30.11.1990 rendered by the learned Assistant Judge, Morbi in Land Acquisition Case No. 16 of 1985 whereby the Reference Court determined just and fair amount of compensation at the rate of Rs. 15 per sq.mtr. The appellants – original claimants felt that the amount awarded by way of compensation to them was less and inadequate and, therefore, preferred this appeal for enhancement of the amount of compensation. 2. An agricultural lands belonging to the appellants – claimants situated at Village : Hasanpar, Taluka : Wankaner, District : Rajkot bearing Survey No. 126/3 admeasuring 5854 sq.mtr was proposed to be acquired for construction of Houses of Gujarat Housing Board. The Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short “the Act”) was published on 15.01.1981 and the Notification under Section 6 of the Act came to be published on 09.01.1984. The Special Land Acquisition Officer conducted inquiry to determine just and fair amount of compensation and the Special Land Acquisition Officer by his award dated 11.03.1985 under Section 11 of the Act offered compensation to the appellants – claimants at the rate of Rs. 5.25 paise per sq.mtr. The claimants felt that the amount offered by way of compensation was meager and insufficient and, therefore, they applied for Reference. Their Reference was numbered and registered as Land Acquisition Case No. 16 of 1985 and the claimants claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 75 per sq.mtr. 3. Before the Reference Court, both the parties adduced oral as well as documentary evidence. The evidence also came to be adduced that as a matter of fact, the land acquired belonging to the claimants was situated almost in the middle of Wankaner city and the same was surrounded by Railway Junction, Quarters of Amarsinhji Mills and the houses of Housing Board etc. It had also come on record that the land of the claimants which came to be acquired was falling within the area of Wankaner Nagarpalika. The Reference Court relied upon the documents at Ex.41 and 42 which pertains to the sale of two plots namely Plot No. 110 and Plot No. 111 and sale transaction took place by way of public auction wherein Wankaner Nagarpalika paid consideration regarding those two plots at the rate of Rs. 48 per sq.mtr for plot No. 110 and Rs. The Reference Court relied upon the documents at Ex.41 and 42 which pertains to the sale of two plots namely Plot No. 110 and Plot No. 111 and sale transaction took place by way of public auction wherein Wankaner Nagarpalika paid consideration regarding those two plots at the rate of Rs. 48 per sq.mtr for plot No. 110 and Rs. 42 per sq.mtr for Plot No. 111 on 30.04.1980. The Reference Court further observed that those plots were situated at the distance of about 700 feet from the acquired land of the claimants. The Reference Court then observed that the claimants had purchased this land in the year 1978 at the consideration of Rs. 5,000 and further held that so far as the comparable auction sale instances relied upon by the claimants produced at Exs.41 and 42 pertains to the small non-agricultural plots admeasuring approximately 60 sq.mtr. each. The Reference Court, therefore, though came to the conclusion that the amount offered by the Special Land Acquisition Officer to the claimants by way of compensation at the rate of Rs. 5.25 per sq.mtr can definitely be said to be less and inadequate and, therefore, the Reference Court observed that the claimants were entitled to recover additional amount of compensation at the rate of Rs. 9.75 per sq.mtr. Thus, the Reference Court determined the market value of the acquired land of the appellants at the rate of Rs. 15 per sq.mtr. This has given rise to this appeal by the original claimants for enhancement. 4. Mr. J.R. Nanavati, Learned Counsel for the appellants – original claimants submitted that the claimants adduced sufficient evidence to show that their land which came to be acquired was situated almost in the middle of Wankaner City. It has come in evidence that surrounding to the acquired land, there was the development. Mr. Nanavati, Learned Counsel further submitted that even in the impugned judgment and award, the Reference Court relied upon auction sale instances namely Exs.41 and 42 whereby two plots came to be purchased by Wankaner Nagarpalika at the rate of Rs. 48 per sq.mtr. and Rs. 42 per sq.mtr. respectively. Mr. Nanavati, Learned Counsel though submitted that there is no dispute that in the year 1978, the claimants had purchased the land at the consideration amount of Rs. 48 per sq.mtr. and Rs. 42 per sq.mtr. respectively. Mr. Nanavati, Learned Counsel though submitted that there is no dispute that in the year 1978, the claimants had purchased the land at the consideration amount of Rs. 5,000 and also there is no dispute that the comparable sale instances consisted of such plots which were small in area and those plots were non-agricultural lands whereas the land of the claimants which went in acquisition was agricultural land and, therefore, though the appellants – claimants cannot be said to be entitled to recover the compensation at the rate of either Rs. 48 per sq.mtr. or Rs. 42 per sq.mtr., but the Reference Court fixed the marked value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 15 per sq.mtr and while determining the said figure, no reasons are assigned by the Reference Court. It is, therefore, submitted that the appeal may be allowed and the appellants – claimants may be awarded reasonable amount of compensation. 5. Per-contra, Ms. Shachi Mathur, learned AGP for the respondent – State vehemently opposed this appeal and submitted that the Reference Court did not commit any error, while determining the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 15 per sq.mtr. It is submitted that Exs.41 and 42 can never be said to be comparable sale instances as that was a public auction sale and not free sale between two individuals. It is further submitted that the said public auction pertains to small non-agricultural plots admeasuring about 60 sq.mtr each whereas in the instant case, the land of the claimants which came to be acquired was agricultural land admeasuring 5854 sq.mtr. and, therefore, cannot be said to be small piece of land and in that case, the Reference Court rightly held that the claimants cannot be entitled to recover compensation at the rate of either Rs. 48 per sq.mtr or Rs. 42 per sq.mtr and keeping all these facts in mind, the Reference Court, therefore, rightly came to the conclusion that the just and fair amount of compensation should be at the rate of Rs. 15 per sq.mtr. It is, therefore, submitted that the appeal may be dismissed. 6. I have considered and examined the Record & Proceedings in context with the submissions made by rival side. 7. 15 per sq.mtr. It is, therefore, submitted that the appeal may be dismissed. 6. I have considered and examined the Record & Proceedings in context with the submissions made by rival side. 7. Perusing the impugned judgment and award so also the oral as well as documentary evidence adduced by both the sides on record before the Reference Court, it transpires that there is no dispute that though the land of the appellants – claimants which came to be acquired was agricultural land, but the same was situated almost in the middle of Wankaner Town. It has come on record that in the nearby vicinity of the acquired land, there was Railway Junction as well as Mills Compound. It has also come on record that the agricultural land was covered within Wankaner Nagarpalika area. The Reference Court, while determining just and fair amount of compensation, took into consideration the surrounding development to the acquired land. It further transpires that the Reference Court took into consideration the evidence namely Exs.41 and 42 which are resolutions passed by Wankaner Nagarpalika on 30.04.1980 whereby in a public auction the Plot No. 110 was purchased at the rate of Rs. 48 per sq.mtr whereas the plot No. 111 came to be purchased at the rate of Rs. 42 per sq.mtr. The Reference Court, thus, came to the conclusion that the amount of compensation offered by the Special Land Acquisition Officer at the rate of Rs. 5.25 per sq.mtr can definitely said to be less and inadequate. While taking Exs.41 and 42, as base, for arriving at the conclusion as to how much amount, the claimants were entitled to recover by way of compensation, the Reference Court examined comparable auction sale instances and observed that the claimants cannot be said to be entitled to recover the compensation at the rate of either Rs. 48 per sq.mtr or Rs. 42 per sq.mtr because the claimants had purchased this land in the year 1978 i.e. just before about 3 years from the date of Notification under Section 4 of the Act and in the instant case, at the consideration of Rs. 5,000/-. The second ground assigned by the Reference Court is that so far as the Plot Nos. 42 per sq.mtr because the claimants had purchased this land in the year 1978 i.e. just before about 3 years from the date of Notification under Section 4 of the Act and in the instant case, at the consideration of Rs. 5,000/-. The second ground assigned by the Reference Court is that so far as the Plot Nos. 110 and 111 were concerned, they were very small in area namely consisting of 60 per sq.mtr each and those were non-agricultural plots whereas in the instant case the land of the claimants which came to be acquired was agricultural land and was large in area namely 5854 sq.mtr. The Reference Court, therefore, rightly held that the claimants cannot be said to be entitled to claim compensation at the rate of either Rs. 48 per sq.mtr or at the rate of Rs. 42 per sq.mtr. However, the Reference Court held that the claimants were entitled to recover additional amount of compensation at the rate of Rs. 9.75 paise per sq.mtr., meaning thereby that the Reference Court determined the just and fair amount of compensation at the rate of Rs. 15 per sq.mtr. However, as stated above, the Reference Court did not commit any error in coming to the conclusion that the claimants were not entitled to claim compensation at the rate of either Rs. 48 per sq.mtr or Rs. 42 per sq.mtr., but while determining just and fair amount of compensation at the rate of Rs. 15 per sq.mtr., the Reference Court seems to have committed error in not properly appreciating the evidence regarding the location of the land of the claimants in Wankaner Town as well as surrounding development and the price rise prevailed at the relevant time in the town. In the background of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the Reference Court should have determined just and fair amount of compensation at the rate of Rs. 20 per sq.mtr. The Special Land Acquisition Officer offered compensation at the rate of Rs. 5.25 per sq.mtr and the Reference Court awarded additional amount of compensation at the rate of Rs. 9.75 per sq.mtr. Thus, as per the Reference Court, the market value of the acquired land was Rs. 15 per sq.mtr. The appellants – claimants is entitled to recover just and fair amount of compensation at the rate of Rs. 5.25 per sq.mtr and the Reference Court awarded additional amount of compensation at the rate of Rs. 9.75 per sq.mtr. Thus, as per the Reference Court, the market value of the acquired land was Rs. 15 per sq.mtr. The appellants – claimants is entitled to recover just and fair amount of compensation at the rate of Rs. 20 per sq.mtr., meaning thereby that the appellants – claimants are entitled to recover additional amount of compensation at the rate of Rs. 5 per sq.mtr. The appeal, therefore, deserves to be partly allowed accordingly. 8. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and award dated 30.11.1990 rendered by the learned Assistant Judge, Morbi in Land Acquisition Case No. 16 of 1985 is modified and the appellants – claimants shall be entitled to recover just and fair amount of additional compensation at the additional rate of Rs. 5 per sq.mtr. The statutory increases and interest awarded by the Reference Court to the appellants are not interfered with, but the appellants shall be entitled to such statutory increases and interest on the amount of compensation fixed by this Court. There shall be no order as to costs. P P P P P