Judgment J.C. Upadhyaya, J.—The challenge in this appeal is to the impugned judgment and order dated 26.10.2007 rendered by learned Additional District Judge, Bharuch in Land Acquisition Reference No. 1269 of 1988, whereby the Reference Court awarded additional amount of compensation at the rate of Rs. 694 per R.A. The Reference Court also awarded statutory additions namely the interest at the rate of 12% per annum as contemplated under Section 23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short “the Act”) and solecism at 30% as provided under Section 23(2) of the Act. The Reference Court awarded interest as provided under Section 28 of the Act. The appellants – original claimants felt that the amount awarded to them by way of compensation by the Reference Court was inadequate and insufficient and, therefore, the original claimants preferred this appeal for enhancement of the amount of compensation. 2. Certain agricultural lands belonging to the claimants situated in the outskirt of Taluka : Valia, District : Bharuch proposed to be acquired by the then Gujarat Electricity Board for construction of Sub Station etc. The Notification under Section 4 of the Act was published on 10.09.1987 and the Notification under Section 6 was published on 25.02.1988. The Special Land Acquisition Officer declared his award under Section 11 of the Act on 20.08.1988 and offered compensation at the rate of Rs. 200 per R.A. (Rs. 2 per sq.mtr.). The claimants felt that the amount offered to them by way of compensation was very less and meager and, therefore, applied for the Reference and the Reference was numbered and registered as Land Acquisition Reference No. 1269 of 1988 wherein additionally, they claimed Rs. 562.50 paise per R.A., but by way of amendment in the Reference Case, they claimed Rs. 500 per sq.mtr. 3. Before the Reference Court, the evidence of one of the claimants namely Harendrasinh Dolatsinh was recorded at Ex.28, the claimants examined witness Lalsing @ Bhikhubhai Parbhatsing at Ex.38 as well as Talati-Cum-Secretary Mahendrasinh Chandrasinh Kosala at Ex.44. No more witnesses examined by the claimants. On behalf of the opponents, no witness came to be examined. Before the Reference Court, the claimants produced necessary documentary evidence like extract of revenue record pertaining to their land as well as map, so also the copy of previous award at Ex.14 rendered in Land Acquisition Reference Cases No. 1057 to 1067 of 2002 dated 20.08.2004. On behalf of the opponents, no witness came to be examined. Before the Reference Court, the claimants produced necessary documentary evidence like extract of revenue record pertaining to their land as well as map, so also the copy of previous award at Ex.14 rendered in Land Acquisition Reference Cases No. 1057 to 1067 of 2002 dated 20.08.2004. The Reference Court mainly relied upon the earlier award at Ex.14 wherein the Reference Court in connection with the acquisition of the lands situated in the outskirt of Village : Valia itself determined compensation at the rate of Rs. 1820 per R.A. The Reference Court in the impugned judgment and award and more particularly in Paragraph No. 37 observed that in the previous award, the Notification under Section 4 of the Act was published on 26.07.1990 whereas in the instant case, the Notification under Section 4 of the Act was published on 10.09.1987 meaning thereby that the Notification, in the instant case, was published prior to about 2 years, 10 months and 16 days from the date of publication of Notification under Section 4 of the Act in the previous award. The Reference Court, therefore, observed that 10% amount per annum was required to be deducted covering the period of 2 years and 10 months and observed that 34.5% was required to be deducted from the price of Rs. 1820 per R.A. The Reference Court, therefore, came to the conclusion that the claimants can be said to be entitled to claim Rs. 1192 per R.A. However, the Reference Court further observed in the said Paragraph No. 37 that the land which came to be acquired in connection with the previous award at Ex.14 was irrigated land whereas in the instant case, the land which came to be acquired belonging to the claimants was non-irrigated land and, therefore, the Reference Court observed that 25% amount shall have to be deducted from Rs. 1192 per R.A and accordingly, the Reference Court fixed the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 894 per R.A. Since Rs. 200 per R.A was already offered by way of compensation by the Special Land Acquisition Officer to the claimants and, therefore, the additional amount of compensation awarded by the Reference Court to the claimants was Rs. 894 per R.A. Since Rs. 200 per R.A was already offered by way of compensation by the Special Land Acquisition Officer to the claimants and, therefore, the additional amount of compensation awarded by the Reference Court to the claimants was Rs. 694 per R.A. This has given rise to this appeal filed by the original claimants for enhancement of the amount of compensation. 4. Mr. V.N. Raval, Learned Counsel for the appellants – original claimants submitted that the impugned judgment and award rendered by the Reference Court is contrary to law and facts on record. At the outset, Mr. Raval, Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the Reference Court rightly relied upon earlier award at Ex.14. However, it is submitted that there is also no dispute that in the previous award, the Notification under Section 4 of the Act was published on 26.07.1990 and in the instant case, the said Notification was published on 10.09.1987 and thus, there was a time gap of 2 years and 10 months. Mr. Raval, Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that there is also no dispute that in the previous award, the land which came to be acquired was situated in the outskirt of the same village i.e. Village : Valia. Mr. Raval, Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that on account of time gap of 2 years and 10 months, the Reference Court committed arithmetical mistake, while observing that at the rate of 10% per annum, the deduction of 34.5% was required to be made. Mr. Raval, Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that as a matter of fact, it comes to 28.33% and not 34.5%. Thus, according to Mr. Raval, Learned Counsel for the appellants, the Reference Court should have deducted 28.33% from Rs. 1820 per R.A and according to him after the deduction, the amount comes to Rs. 1304 per R.A (Rs. 1820, minus Rs. 516). 4.1 Mr. Raval, Learned Counsel for the appellants further submitted that the Reference Court, thereafter, deducted 25% more from the amount of compensation by observing that in the previous award, the land which came to be acquired was irrigated land whereas in the instant case, the land of the claimants which came to be acquired was non-irrigated land. Drawing my attention to the copy of the previous award at Ex.14, Mr. Drawing my attention to the copy of the previous award at Ex.14, Mr. Raval, Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that in the previous judgment and award, the Reference Court nowhere observed that the land which came to be acquired pursuant to the said award was irrigated land. Mr. Raval, Learned Counsel for the appellants tendered a copy of Form No. H from the record of the previous award wherein in Column No. 6, it is stated that the lands acquired in the previous award were non-irrigated lands. The copy of Form No. H presented for perusal by Mr. Raval, Learned Counsel for the appellants shall be retained on record. Mr. Raval, Learned Counsel for the appellants, therefore, submitted that the Reference Court seriously erred in deducting 25% on the ground that in the previous award, the lands which acquired were irrigated lands. Mr. Raval, Learned Counsel for the appellants, therefore, submitted that in the instant case, the claimants are entitled to recover just and fair amount of compensation at the rate of Rs. 1304 per R.A less Rs. 200 per R.A already awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. 5. Per-contra, Ms. Shachi Mathur, learned AGP for the respondent No. 1 and Ms. R. V. Acharya, Learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2, the then G.E.B fully supported the impugned judgment and award rendered by the Reference Court and submitted that the Reference Court relying upon the previous award at Ex.14 rightly came to the conclusion that just and fair amount of market value of the acquired land can be excess as Rs. 894 per R.A minus amount already awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. However, it has been fairly conceded that in the previous award at Ex.14, the Notification under Section 4 of the Act was published on 28.07.1990 whereas in the instant case, the Notification under Section 4 of the Act which came to be published on 10.09.1987 i.e. prior to about 2 years and 10 months from the date of publication of Notification in the comparable award and accordingly, at the rate of 10% per annum deduction, the Reference Court should have deducted 28.33% instead of 34.5%. Therefore, it is submitted that Rs. 516 per R.A should have deducted by the Reference Court from Rs. Therefore, it is submitted that Rs. 516 per R.A should have deducted by the Reference Court from Rs. 1820 per R.A. However, it is submitted that so far as 25% deduction is concerned, the Reference Court cannot be said to have committed in irrigated or non-irrigated as considered oral evidence adduced by the claimant, then before the Reference Court it is duly established that the lands of the claimants were non-irrigated lands and the same was stony land and no just evidence was adduced by the claimants that they used to grow cultivation in their lands. It is, therefore, submitted that the lands which came to be previously acquired in the comparable award at Ex.14 was non-irrigated land, but the lands of the claimants and the lands which cam to be previously acquired cannot be said to be similar and identical in fertility and in potentiality and, therefore, the Reference Court though considering the lands acquired under previous award as irrigated lands and even if it is held that in the previous award the lands which came to be acquired were non-irrigated lands yet considering the facts and circumstances which emerged from the evidence of the claimants and his witnesses, the lands were not identical and similar and, therefore, the Reference Court was rightly in its ultimate conclusion to deduct 25% amount. Ultimately, it is submitted that 25% amount is required to be deducted from Rs. 1304 per R.A. It is, therefore, submitted that necessary orders may be passed in the appeal. 6. I have examined Record and Proceedings in context with the submissions made by the rival side. 7. Perusing the impugned judgment and award rendered by the Reference Court, though by way of oral evidence, the claimants deposed that they used to cultivate three crops in a year and deducting reasonable expenses towards the agricultural operations, they were earning handsome amount by way of profit, yet ultimately, the claimants relied upon the previous award at Ex.14. Even the Reference Court, relied upon the previous award at Ex.14. Considering the previous award Ex.14, rendered in L.A.R. Nos.1057 to 1067 of 2002, there is no dispute that those lands were situated in the outskirt of Village : Valia itself. The Notification under Section 4 of the Act in the previous award came to be published on 26.07.1990. Even the Reference Court, relied upon the previous award at Ex.14. Considering the previous award Ex.14, rendered in L.A.R. Nos.1057 to 1067 of 2002, there is no dispute that those lands were situated in the outskirt of Village : Valia itself. The Notification under Section 4 of the Act in the previous award came to be published on 26.07.1990. In the said matter, the Reference Court fixed the amount of compensation at the market rate of Rs. 1820 per R.A. 7.1 Now so far as the instant case is concerned, the Notification under Section 4 of the Act came to be published on 10.09.1987. Thus, the Notification in the instant case came to be published before about 2 years and 10 months from the date of publication of the Notification in the previous award. The Reference Court, therefore, in Paragraph No. 37 of the impugned judgment and award, relied upon the earlier decision of this Court and observed that since there was a time gap of 2 years and 10 months, at 10% per annum deduction, 34.5% was required to be deducted from Rs. 1820 per R.A price. It appears that, the Reference Court seems to have committed arithmetical mistake while coming to the conclusion that 34.5% was required to be deducted, for a time gap of 2 years and 10 months at the rate of 10% P.A. As submitted by both the sides, the appropriate deduction would have been 28.33% and accordingly, the Reference Court should have deducted Rs. 516 per R.A from Rs. 1820 per R.A which comes to Rs. 1304 per R.A. 8. However, real controversy is about 25% more amount which came to be deducted by the Reference Court. For the said deduction, the Reference Court observed that in earlier award, the land which came to be acquired was irrigated land and in the instant case, admittedly, the land acquired was non-irrigated land. The Reference Court, therefore, observed that 25% amount shall have to be further reduced and accordingly, assessed the market value of the lands at the rate of Rs. 8.94 paise per R.A. Perusing the copy of the previous judgment and award at Ex.14, it is true that nowhere it has been mentioned as to whether the land acquired earlier was irrigated land or non-irrigated land. 8.94 paise per R.A. Perusing the copy of the previous judgment and award at Ex.14, it is true that nowhere it has been mentioned as to whether the land acquired earlier was irrigated land or non-irrigated land. Considering the copy of Form No. H which came to be presented from record of previous award by Mr. Raval, Learned Counsel for the appellants and more particularly considering column No. 6, it clearly appears that the lands which came to be acquired in the previous award were non-irrigated lands. Mr. Raval, Learned Counsel for the appellants, therefore, submitted that in the instant case, the claimants are, therefore, entitled to recover just and fair amount of compensation at the rate of Rs. 1304 per R.A less Rs. 200 per R.A offered by the Special Land Acquisition Officer i.e. Rs. 1104 per R.A. by way of additional amount of compensation. 9. Now, again, perusing the Record and Proceedings of the Reference Case, it transpires that initially, the claimants claimed additional amount of compensation at the rate of Rs. 562.50 paise per R.A. However, thereafter, during the pendency of said Reference Case before the Reference Court, the claimants filed the application at Ex.13 for amendment and the said application was allowed whereby the claimants claimed additional amount of compensation at the rate of Rs. 500 per sq.mtr. One of the claimants Harendrasinh in his evidence at Ex.28, in examination-in-chief, in Paragraph No. 1, stated that initially, claimants had claimed additional amount of compensation at the rate of Rs. 565 per R.A., but by way of amendment, they claimed Rs. 500 per sq.mtr. That in Paragraph No. 3, he stated that the Notification under Section 4 of the Act, in the instant case, came to be published in the year 1987 and in the year 1987, the price prevailed in Village : Valia for agricultural land was Rs. 1000 per R.A. He further submitted that if any agricultural land situated within 1 k.m. from pond, for irrigated land the price was Rs. 2,50,000 per hector and for non-irrigated land, the price was Rs. 1,50,000. However, in his cross-examination, he admitted that he did not produce any evidence to show that at the time of acquisition, the price of agricultural land prevailed in Village : Valia was more than Rs. 2,50,000 per hector and for non-irrigated land, the price was Rs. 1,50,000. However, in his cross-examination, he admitted that he did not produce any evidence to show that at the time of acquisition, the price of agricultural land prevailed in Village : Valia was more than Rs. 1000 per R.A. Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that at the time when the land was acquired, this claimant Harendrasinh was aged only about 10 years and, therefore, his evidence cannot be said to be relevant for the purpose of establishing the price of the lands, but Mr. Raval, Learned Counsel submitted that since by way of amendment, when the claimants claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 500 per sq.mtr., in the instant case, just and fair amount of compensation which the claimants claimed at the market rate of Rs. 1304 per R.A cannot be said to be exorbitant or disproportionate to their claim. 9.1 Now in the instant case as stated above, on behalf of all the claimants, the claimants only examined Harendrasinh as their witness to prove in sufficiency of the amount of compensation. It is further pertinent to note that initially by way of application for References, the claimants claimed additional amount of compensation at the rate of Rs. 562.50 paise per R.A. It is true that subsequently, by way of amendment, the claimants claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 500 per sq.mtr. The claimant Harendrasinh in his evidence stated that in the year 1987, the price of the agricultural land prevailed in his village was more than Rs. 1000 per R.A. It is further pertinent to note that the claimants examined Lalsing @ Bhikhubhai Parbhatsing as well as Talati-Cum-Secretary Mahendrasinh Chandrasinh Kosala. I have examined the oral evidence of both the witnesses. The witness Lalsing @ Bhikhubhai Parbhatsing in his examination-in-chief in last line deposed that in the year 1987, the price of the agricultural lands which prevailed in Village : Valia was about Rs. 5000 per Guntha. In his cross-examination, he admitted that he does not adduce any evidence to substantiate his deposition about the price. About the price of agricultural land which prevailed in the year 1987 so far as Village : Valia is concerned, nothing emerges from the evidence of the Talati-Cum-Secretary Mahendrasinh Chandrasinh Kosala examined by the claimants. 10. 5000 per Guntha. In his cross-examination, he admitted that he does not adduce any evidence to substantiate his deposition about the price. About the price of agricultural land which prevailed in the year 1987 so far as Village : Valia is concerned, nothing emerges from the evidence of the Talati-Cum-Secretary Mahendrasinh Chandrasinh Kosala examined by the claimants. 10. In the result, it clearly transpires that the land which came to be previously acquired in connection with the previous award at Ex.14 of Village : Valia was non-irrigated land and the land of the claimants which came to be acquired was also non-irrigated land. However, so far as the question of potentiality and fertility of the land of the claimants is concerned, the claimant Hanredrasinh in his deposition at Ex.28 in his cross-examination, admitted that the acquired land was stony land and he further admitted that he used to cultivate the crop depending upon the rain fall. He went to the extent of saying that in his land even grass was not growing. When such is the situation, it cannot be said that the appellants were entitled to claim compensation at the rate of Rs. 1304 per R.A. 11. For the foregoing reasons, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the appellants are entitled to claim just and fair amount of compensation at the rate of Rs. 1000 per R.A. The Special Land Acquisition Officer offered compensation at the rate of Rs. 200 per R.A and, therefore, the additional amount which the appellants are entitled to recover by way of compensation shall be at the rate of Rs. 800 per R.A instead of additional amount of compensation which the Reference Court awarded at the rate of Rs. 694 per R.A. The appeal, therefore, deserves to be partly allowed. 12. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and award dated 26.10.2007 rendered by the learned Additional District Judge, Bharuch in L.A.R. No. 1269 of 1998 is modified and it is, therefore, directed that the appellants – claimants are entitled to get just and fair amount of compensation of their acquired lands at the additional rate of Rs. 800 per R.A. (Rs. 8 per sq.mtr.). The impugned judgment and award dated 26.10.2007 rendered by the learned Additional District Judge, Bharuch in L.A.R. No. 1269 of 1998 is modified and it is, therefore, directed that the appellants – claimants are entitled to get just and fair amount of compensation of their acquired lands at the additional rate of Rs. 800 per R.A. (Rs. 8 per sq.mtr.). The other statutory increases namely interest under Section 23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act as well as solecism at the rate of 30% as provided under Section 23(2) of the Act as well as running interest as contemplated under Section 28 of the Act as awarded by the Reference Court is not interfered with. However, the appellants – claimants shall be entitled to get those statutory increases and interest on the additional amount of compensation determined by this Court. Two months’ time is granted to deposit the amount awarded by this Court and the amount shall be deposited before the Reference Court. There shall be no order as to costs. P P P P P