Judgment Ms. Bela Trivedi J.—All these appeals arise out of the common award dated 31.12.2008 passed by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Morbi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Reference Court’) in Land Reference Case Nos. 47 of 2000 to 62 of 2000 whereby, the respective respondents (original claimants) herein are awarded additional compensation at the rate of Rs. 5.75 ps. per sq.mtr. for irrigated lands and Rs. 4.25 ps. per sq.mtr. for non-irrigated acquired lands over and above the compensation already awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, as also the interest and solatium as awarded therein. 2. The short facts giving rise to the present set of First Appeals are inter alia that the lands of the respondents (original claimants) were sought to be acquired by the appellants for Maliya-Canal of Narmada Scheme by issuing notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) which was published in Government Gazette on 03.09.1992. Subsequently, the notification under Section 6 of the Act was also published on 08.09.1993 and the award was declared by the Land Acquisition Officer on 02.03.1996. Being aggrieved by the said award, the respondents (original claimants) had preferred the applications for referring the same to the Reference Court for additional compensation, as prayed for, in the applications. The said reference applications were registered as Land Reference Case Nos. 47 of 2000 to 62 of 2000. The Reference Court, after considering the evidence on record, awarded the additional compensation with interest and solatium as per the common award dated 31.12.2008. Being aggrieved by the said common award, the present appellants(original opponents) have preferred the above referred First Appeals under Section 54 of the Act read with Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure before this Court. 3. It has been submitted by learned A.G.P. Ms. Manisha Narsinghani that the Reference Court had committed an error by awarding additional compensation on the basis of yield method ignoring the sale instances which were available for the relevant period when the notification under Section 4 was issued. Of course, she has conceded that in all the appeals, the additional amount of compensation awarded is below Rs. 25,000/-. 4. Learned advocate Mr. N.V. Gandhi for the respondents, however relying upon the judgments of this Court, submitted that the amount under challenge being very meagre amount, the First Appeals deserve to be dismissed. Of course, she has conceded that in all the appeals, the additional amount of compensation awarded is below Rs. 25,000/-. 4. Learned advocate Mr. N.V. Gandhi for the respondents, however relying upon the judgments of this Court, submitted that the amount under challenge being very meagre amount, the First Appeals deserve to be dismissed. Learned advocate Mr. Gandhi also relied upon the judgment of this Court in case of Special Land Acquisition Officer vs. Gordhanbhai Dahyabhai reported in 2009(0) GLHEL-HC 221775 to submit that the Court had dismissed the First appeals arising out of the award for the acquisition of the land for the same project of Maliya-Canal wherein, the Reference Court had awarded Rs. 7/- for irrigated lands and Rs. 5/- for non-irrigated lands. According to Mr. Gandhi, similar order was also passed by this Court in First Appeal No.3482 of 2008 on 23.03.2011 and considering those judgments passed by this Court, the present First Appeals deserve to be dismissed. 5. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned advocates for the parties and the judgments of this Court relied upon by learned advocate Mr. Gandhi which pertain to the lands of village Malia acquired for the same project for which the present lands in question were acquired, it appears that the additional amount of compensation awarded in the instant cases, at the rate of Rs. 5.75 ps. per sq.mtr. for irrigated lands and Rs. 4.25 ps. per sq. mtr. for non-irrigated lands is just and proper, and could not be said to be on a very higher side. As rightly submitted by Mr. Gandhi, in the above referred judgments of this Court, the Reference Court had awarded Rs. 7/- per sq. mtr. for irrigated lands and Rs. 5/- per sq. mtr. for non-irrigated lands and the same has been confirmed by this Court. Under the circumstances, the Reference Court having awarded additional compensation at the rate of Rs. 5.75 ps. per sq. mtr. for irrigated lands and Rs. 4.25 ps. per sq. mtr. for non-irrigated lands, it could not be said to be an un-reasonable award of compensation. Even otherwise, value of claim in each of the First Appeals being less than Rs. 25,000/-, the appeals deserve to be dismissed on that ground also. 6. 5.75 ps. per sq. mtr. for irrigated lands and Rs. 4.25 ps. per sq. mtr. for non-irrigated lands, it could not be said to be an un-reasonable award of compensation. Even otherwise, value of claim in each of the First Appeals being less than Rs. 25,000/-, the appeals deserve to be dismissed on that ground also. 6. In that view of the matter, there being no substance in the present First Appeals, the same deserve to be dismissed and are hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.