Judgment Jayant Patel, J.—As in both the appeals and the Cross Objection, common questions arise, they are being considered by this common judgement. 2. The relevant facts are that the original claimants (hereinafter referred to as the ‘original claimants/land owners’) were occupying the agricultural lands at Village Dholakuva and upon enactment and enforcement of Bombay Inferior Village Watans Abolition Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Watans Abolition Act’), the occupants of the land in question on the principles of the Tillers Land had to pay occupancy price and upon the payment of the occupancy price the land may be re-granted to the occupier. So far as the present land is concerned, as per the original claimants, they were occupiers, however, after the enactment of the Watans Abolition Act, the lands were shown in the revenue record as resumed by the Government. The occupancy price was fixed and paid by the original claimant, but the actual, physical possession of the land by re-grant was not handed over to the original claimants. In the meantime, when certain lands at Village Dholakuva were acquired under the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’), no proposal was forwarded for acquisition of the land in question, since they were already shown in the revenue record as that of the Government. However, together with the other lands, which were acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, the Executive Engineer of the Capital Project took over the possession of the land in question as if they were Government Land and having vested and in occupation of the Government as per the Watans Abolition Act, but not re-granted to the original occupants. It appears that the matter thereafter continued for a long time in the same position and the original claimants made representation against their rights have not been properly considered for the lands in question of re-grant of the land and of handing over of the possession and wrongful deprivation of the possession of the land in question. 3. Ultimately, there were litigations before this Court and the matter thereafter was referred to Kr. Fateh Singh Jasol to examine and submit the report to the State Government, popularly known as ‘Jasol Committee’. The said Jasol Committee in the report, gave the decision, which may be of some importance in the present issue to be considered. 3. Ultimately, there were litigations before this Court and the matter thereafter was referred to Kr. Fateh Singh Jasol to examine and submit the report to the State Government, popularly known as ‘Jasol Committee’. The said Jasol Committee in the report, gave the decision, which may be of some importance in the present issue to be considered. Under these circumstances, with the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for both the sides, we have taken on record Jasol Committee report dated 22.6.2001. In order to understand the rights of the parties, inter se, for the purpose of the fair assessment of the market rent and/or the compensation, which may be dealt with hereinafter certain observations in the said report are relevant. We may state that Jasol Committee gave the final decision as under:— “6. What Final Decision? Based on my findings as above recorded on the various issue arising from the case I now record below my decision as follows:— 1. The order of the Collector Gandhinagar dated 24.2.66 ordering the petition lands to be transferred on record to the name of the Public Works Department and ordering possession of the same to be handed over to that Department is held to be unlawful and without any basis in law and therefore ab initio void. Consequently, all action taken on the basis of that order including the dispossession of the occupants of the lands at that time and the handing over of the possession of the lands to the Public Works Department and the continuing possession of the same by that Department is held to be unlawful and void from being based on an unlawful origin. To set matters right, the Collector should cancel his order dated 24.2.66 and proceed to deal with the matter of the survey numbers 56/1, 56/2 and 56/3 in accordance with the provisions of the Bombay Inferior Village Watans Abolition Act, 1958 as these lands were watan lands within the ambit of that Act and therefore required by law to be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of that Act. What this will mean in effect is that the patently illegal order that set in motion the long chain of illegalities in this case will be extinguished as it should be. What this will mean in effect is that the patently illegal order that set in motion the long chain of illegalities in this case will be extinguished as it should be. There will be no other effect in so far as Survey Numbers 56/1 and 56/2 are concerned because the former watandars had already paid the occupancy price and the Mamlatdar has already passed a regrant order. But the cancellation of the offending order will have a salutary effect in so far as Survey Number 56/3 is concerned for in that case the Collector will have to undertake fresh proceedings. The Collector is advised to conclude these proceedings within two weeks of the date of this Report. He is reminded that proceedings he conducts under the provisions of the Act are judicial proceedings as laid down in Section 17 of the Act and he will be expected to proceed with due regard to all principles governing such proceedings so that the mistakes of the past are not repeated. It is expected that by this means the distinct twin problems of survey numbers 56/1 and 56/2 on the one hand and 56/3 on the other will get resolved to the satisfaction of the strict requirements of due process and no anomalies should thereafter remain. The Collector Gandhinagar is advised to take all necessary further remedial action arising from the fact that those having right, title and interest in survey number 56/3 were not evicted from the land as required by Section 5(2) of the Bombay Inferior Village Watans Abolition Act, 1958 which was in the case the proper authority for the action and that the manner of their dispossession did not conform to any enabling law. In other words, that the eviction of the holders was unlawful in its manner and method. In now setting right the matter the Collector will resort to the provisions of section 202 of the LR Code should he find eviction still called for on grounds of non-payment of the occupancy price. This will give the petitioners an opportunity to have a say in the matter and to receive the opportunity of a hearing (an opportunity to which they were always entitled under law and in keeping with the principles of natural justice but which they never got) before the Collector finally disposes of the matter in accordance with the law. 2. This will give the petitioners an opportunity to have a say in the matter and to receive the opportunity of a hearing (an opportunity to which they were always entitled under law and in keeping with the principles of natural justice but which they never got) before the Collector finally disposes of the matter in accordance with the law. 2. The Executive Engineer Capital Project Division 2 is advised to submit proposals within ten days of the date of this decision to the Special Land Acquisition Officer for the acquisition of survey numbers 56/1 and 56/2 of Dholakua village for the purpose of construction of Capital Project. The time limit is reasonable as he has already submitted these proposals in the past and all necessary papers and records are available with him. While this will amount to somewhat pre-empting the action of the Collector as advised above it will not be offensive to the law under the facts and circumstances of this case as the Collector is only correcting a historical legal mistake in retrospect and not doing anything having any new prospective effect unless something new in respect of survey number 56/3 turns up to alter the predictable course of events. A land acquisition proposal in respect of survey number 56/3 does not presently appear indicated unless the outcome of the fresh proceedings before the collector should warrant otherwise. 3. The Special Land Acquisition Officer is advised to take expeditious further action on the proposals so submitted and to finalize and declare an award for the award of compensation for the lands so acquired within reasonable time and to award compensation to those having legal right, title and claim in accordance with the law. He is counseled to show maturity and wisdom in the pursuit of the matter having regard to the hardship, inconvenience and loss already caused to petitioners by the unlawful manner of their dispossession of their watan lands to the regrant of which they were clearly entitled and to ensure most expeditious disposal of the matter. All petitioners will be at liberty to seek the protection of the laws in respect of any action that may be taken by the concerned authorities on directions given herein.” 4. All petitioners will be at liberty to seek the protection of the laws in respect of any action that may be taken by the concerned authorities on directions given herein.” 4. It is undisputed position that thereafter the State Government accepted the report of Jasol Committee and accordingly the notional rights came to be conferred of the land in question upon the original claimants as owners as if the land regranted under Watan Abolition Act. It appears that thereafter as the original claimants were treated as the owners of the land, and as it was so recommended in the Jasol Committee report for the acquisition of the land, a proposal was moved for acquiring of the land in question for Gandhinagar Capital Project. Notification under Section 4 of the Act was published on 15.4.2002. Notification under Section 6 of the Act is dated 28.6.2002, but was published on 10.7.2002. Thereafter, the Special Land Acquisition Officer held an inquiry and ultimately passed the award on 30.10.2003, whereby he has awarded compensation at Rs. 115/- per sq. mtrs. The pertinent aspect is that in the inquiry before the Special Land Acquisition Officer the original claimants did demand the compensation on the basis that the possession was taken over from 1960 onwards and even the Special Land Acquisition Officer in the award considered the said aspect and at paragraph 15 in the award he observed that as the possession was taken over from 23.3.1966, the State Government will have to pay the rental amount as per the resolution of the Government to the owners of the land. However, in the ultimate calculation of the compensation, he has not quantified the compensation for such purpose. The land owners – original claimants, as were not satisfied with the compensation, raised the dispute under Section 18 of the Act and demanded compensation at Rs. 30,000/- per sq. mtrs., of the land in question. Those disputes were referred to the Reference Court for adjudication being Reference Case No. 6/2004 and No. 36/2004. The Reference Court at the conclusion of the reference, awarded additional compensation at Rs. 3,385/- per sq. 30,000/- per sq. mtrs., of the land in question. Those disputes were referred to the Reference Court for adjudication being Reference Case No. 6/2004 and No. 36/2004. The Reference Court at the conclusion of the reference, awarded additional compensation at Rs. 3,385/- per sq. mtrs., and has further granted statutory benefits of additional amount as per Section 23(1-A) of the Act and solatium at the 30% under Section 23(2) of the Act and has also awarded interest at the rate of 9% p.a., for the first year and at the rate of 15% p.a., for the subsequent years from the date on which the possession was taken over until the amount is realized. It is under these circumstances, the present appeals before this Court. 5. We have heard Ms. Sangeeta Vishen, learned AGP for the appellants and Mr. S.N. Shelat, learned Senior Counsel appearing with Mr. Amin for the respondents and we have considered the Record and Proceedings. 6. The contentions raised by learned Counsel appearing for respective parties shall be dealt with to the extent of relevant hereinafter. 7. Before we consider merits of the case upon appreciation by us, we may mention that the Reference Court, while assessing market value of the land in question, has recorded reasons at paragraph 14 onwards of the judgment. It appears that the Reference Court was mainly guided by the document at Exh.32 whereby opinion was expressed by the Chief Town Planner for the land of Sector No. 2 for assessment of the price of the land at Rs. 3340/- per square meter and, therefore, ultimately has assessed the market value at Rs. 3500/- per square meter and after deduction of compensation already paid of Rs. 115/-, has awarded additional compensation at Rs. 3385/- per square meter. It is true that the Reference Court has referred to various documents viz., as that of sale instances and for disposal of the Government lands by public auction wherein the price was realised of much higher amount for small pieces of land, but found that they are not of comparable land. It further appears that relevancy of the document at Exh.27 for allotment of the land vide order dated 29.11.1999 as was required to be taken into consideration has not been properly considered by the Reference Court. It further appears that relevancy of the document at Exh.27 for allotment of the land vide order dated 29.11.1999 as was required to be taken into consideration has not been properly considered by the Reference Court. We may also record that as Cross Objections have been filed for enhancement of compensation, it may be required for us to re-appreciate the evidence for fair assessment of market value of the land in question. 8. It may be recorded that in the inquiry under Section 9 of the Act before the Special Land Acquisition Officer, the claimants had demanded compensation at Rs. 3500/- per square meter of the land in question and in the said demand, the basis was for allotment of the land for establishment of Infocity and thereafter further allotment of the land to various entrepreneurs by the company known as ‘Creative Infocity Limited’ at Rs. 3500/- per square meter and on that basis, demand was made for compensation at Rs. 3500/- per square meter. Another relevant aspect is that in the dispute raised before the Collector under Section 18 of the Act which ultimately came to be referred to the Reference Court for adjudication, it was stated by the claimants that the land in question is part of the project of Infocity and for establishment of Infocity, the Government has allotted the land at subsidized rate to the Creative Infocity Limited and in Phase–II, allotment of land by the Government is at Rs. 1485/- per square meter on concessional basis. The second ground was contended that the Chief Town Planner has assessed the market value at Rs. 2000/- per square meter and the third ground is that in Sector Nos. 1 and 2, the market value was Rs. 3060/- per square meter and Rs.3340/- per square meter respectively and thereafter, demand has been made for compensation at Rs. 30,000/- per square meter. 9. It appears that sale instances of the nearest area of the land in question can be one of very strong and valid basis for tracing the correct market value of the land. The said document is at Exh.27 for allotment of the land for Infocity admeasuring 192.5 acres vide order dated 29.11.1999 of the State Government. It has come in the evidence that Infocity is located at just half a kilometer from the land in question. The said document is at Exh.27 for allotment of the land for Infocity admeasuring 192.5 acres vide order dated 29.11.1999 of the State Government. It has come in the evidence that Infocity is located at just half a kilometer from the land in question. Further, the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act is of the year 2002, whereas allotment of the land for Infocity vide document at Exh.27 is of the year 1999, i.e. prior to the notification under Section 4 of the Act. If the said document is taken into consideration, it appears that the Government had contemplated to plan Infocity in the land of approximately over 200 acres and out of which 150 acres of land is allotted for establishment of Infocity. As per the said document at Exh.27 out of the total land of 150 acres, the land admeasuring 77 acres is allotted at Rs. 101/- per acre. Thereafter, out of remaining land of 73 acres, allotment was to be made in two phases i.e. Phase–I the land admeasuring 39 acres at Rs. 600/- per square meter, whereas in Phase–II, remaining land admeasuring 34 acres at Rs. 1485/- per square meter. The document at Exh.27 further shows that the land has been allotted on concessional rate by the State Government. The total area of 150 acres is worked out by converting the acre into the square meter, comes to 607000.50 square meters and if the price for allotment is considered, the total price comes to Rs. 29,90,40,607/-. Under the circumstances, the price per square meter would come to Rs. 492.61 meter and if rounded of, it may come to Rs. 500/- per square meter being the price arrived at by averaging out of the total area vis-a-vis total consideration to be paid against allotment of the land. 10. Mr. Shelat, learned Counsel appearing for the original claimant did make an attempt to contend that the Court should not average out the price if the document at Exh.27 is to be taken into consideration and in his submission, if any price is to be considered, the same could not be less than Rs. 1485/- per square meter that too at the concessional rate which would be less than the market price. 11. 1485/- per square meter that too at the concessional rate which would be less than the market price. 11. In our view, if it is a case of various sale instances of independent in nature that too with substantial time gap, possibly the contention may be required to be further examined. However, in the present case, allotment of the land is only by one order. Further, in the very order, all the three allotments are mentioned. Therefore, when the Government took decision for allotment of 150 acres of land, total value of the land and the price fixed are deemed as considered and thereafter allotment is made. Not only that, but if the actual cost of the land in question is to be arrived at or actual value of the land in question is to be arrived at, total money realised and total area allotted by the document at Exh.27 are required to be taken into consideration. If both are considered, the price as was realised is to be treated as cost for purchaser and revenue or price realised for the Government. Therefore, it is not the case where sale instances are of different types of different time gaps and of independent in nature and average is to be made out of the price, but it is a case where by common order, allotment has been made for different parcels of land for the same project to only one party/allottee for establishment of Infocity. Under these circumstances, we cannot accept the contention of learned Counsel for the respondents that total average price cannot be considered in the present case if the document at Exh.27 is to be considered and hence, the said contention deserves to be rejected. 12. There is considerable force in the submission of learned Counsel for the respondents to the extent that area allotted for Infocity is much larger area admeasuring about 150 acres of land, roughly about 600000 square meters, whereas the land in question is about 20000 square meters. There is also considerable force in the contention of learned Counsel for the respondents that the land has been allotted at concessional rate for establishment of the project of Infocity, but while considering the said contention, it has to be borne in mind that the land allotted for Infocity is having the character of non-agricultural land, whereas the land acquired is purely an agricultural land. If the area factor is considered to the average price of Rs. 500/- per square meter, we find that at the best, benefit should not exceed 20% by way of increase in the price as the area of the land allotted is 30 times than land under acquisition but the difference is to be considered for value of the land and if such amount is calculated, it would be Rs.100/- per square meter and the total would come to Rs. 600/- per square meter. Further, while considering the question of concessional rate, even if it is reasonably considered, in our view, it would not be exceeding 1/3rd of the market price prevailing by way of concession and, therefore, if 1/3rd of the price is added in the average price of Rs. 600/- per square meter, it would be Rs. 200/- per square meter. In this manner, the price can reasonably be assessed at Rs. 800/- per square meter. 13. It is by now well settled that the price for agricultural land and nonagricultural land would not be the same. This Court had occasion to consider the aspect of difference in the price of agricultural land and nonagricultural land after considering valuation made by the Government for allotment of the land in the case of State of Gujarat through Special Land Acquisition Officer and another vs. Amaji Mohanji Thakore, reported in 2010 (3) GLH 447. In paragraphs 29 and 30, it was observed thus:— “29.The aforesaid takes us to examine the next question about the nature of the land and change in the nature of the land, if any, and its effect for the purpose of the assessment of the market value of the land. 30. The order of the Collector dated 31.3.2006 for allotment of the land is of Block No. 1724 admeasuring 1 Hectre – 00 Are in favour of the Water Supply and Sewerage Board. The said order shows that the Valuation Committee has made the value of the land of the very village Kherwa on 10.5.2004 at Rs. 200/- per sq. mtrs. Further, the allotment of the land is for non-agricultural purpose for construction of Head Works in the Water Supply Project, whereas the land in question has been acquired as per the Notification under Section 4 of the Act on 1.12.2005 and the nature of the land was agricultural land and not non-agricultural land. 200/- per sq. mtrs. Further, the allotment of the land is for non-agricultural purpose for construction of Head Works in the Water Supply Project, whereas the land in question has been acquired as per the Notification under Section 4 of the Act on 1.12.2005 and the nature of the land was agricultural land and not non-agricultural land. If the area and the size of the different portions of the agricultural land acquired in the present case is considered claimant/owner-wise, in majority of the acquisition the area is less than 1 hectre. Therefore, so far as the area is concerned and as the land allotted is 1 hectre and the acquisition of the majority of the land is less than 1 hectre per claimant/owner-wise there would not be any change or reduction in the valuation of the land of larger size acquisition as against the price fixed for a smaller area. The nature of the land or the character of the land under acquisition and the land which is allotted by the Direct Collector appears to be different inasmuch as the land under acquisition is acquired as agricultural land, whereas the land allotted by the Director Collector is though waste land, but for non-agricultural purpose. If any agricultural land is to be converted for non-agricultural purpose, there will be about 25% deduction in the area itself and further the conversion charges of agricultural land will have to be paid for non-agricultural use and such expenses for conversion would also be roughly 5%, by way of a burden upon the agricultural land. Therefore, it appears to us that if the aforesaid two circumstances are taken into consideration, the difference between the market price of the agricultural land and the market price of the non-agricultural land shall be minimum 30%. To say in other words, the agricultural land shall be less by 30% as against the price of the non-agricultural land.” 14. Aforesaid shows that the price of the agricultural land would be less by 30% as against the price of nonagricultural land. Under the circumstances, if 30% is counted of Rs. 800/- per square meter, such amount would come to Rs. 240/- and if deducted from Rs. 800/-, the net price would come to Rs. 560/- per square meter. 15. Aforesaid shows that the price of the agricultural land would be less by 30% as against the price of nonagricultural land. Under the circumstances, if 30% is counted of Rs. 800/- per square meter, such amount would come to Rs. 240/- and if deducted from Rs. 800/-, the net price would come to Rs. 560/- per square meter. 15. At this state we may refer to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Faridabad Gas Power Project, National Limited and Others vs. Om Prakash and Ors., reported in (2009) 4 SCC 719 , it was observed by the Apex Court that when the comparison of agricultural land or non-agricultural land is to be considered, which has the potential value for housing or commercial purpose the deduction may vary from 53% to 33.33% and it was also observed that the deduction depends on the nature, location, extent of expenditure involved for development of the land so as to make the plot for residential or commercial purpose and other amenities. As observed by us keeping in view normal distinction of the prices between the agricultural and non-agricultural land, we have already observed that there will be 30% deduction for finding out the value of the agricultural value in comparison to the non-agricultural land. 16. It is required to be considered that allotment of the land for Infocity is in the year 1999, whereas the notification under Section 4 of the Act is in the year 2002. Therefore, there is time gap of approximately 3 years. It is by now well settled that appreciation in normal circumstance is to be considered at the rate of 10% per year. However, peculiar circumstance in the present case is that the land is located within the capital project of Gandhinagar of Gujarat State. Further, the project of establishment of Infocity at the distance of half a kilometer was already projected at the time when the notification under Section 4 of the Act was published. The growth of Gandhinagar City and more particularly of the lands which are part of the capital project can be said as higher in comparison to the normal growth rate by way of appreciation in the price of the lands located at the area. Under these circumstances, we find that it would be reasonable to appreciate rate at the higher amount than 10% per annum. Under these circumstances, we find that it would be reasonable to appreciate rate at the higher amount than 10% per annum. In our opinion, it would be reasonable to consider appreciation at the rate of 12.5% per annum for three years, which would come to Rs. 37.5% and if the figure is calculated taking the basis as Rs. 560/-, it would come to Rs. 210/- per square meter and if added with the principal figure of Rs. 560/-, the total would come to Rs. 770/- per square meter. Therefore, it appears to us that if the document at Exh.27 is considered and found as one of the most reliable pieces of evidence for tracing the market value of the land in question, the fair market value would be Rs. 770/- per square meter in the year 2002 when the notification under Section 4 of the Act was published. 17. An attempt was made by learned Counsel for the respondents to contend that the market price of the land was assessed by the Chief Town Planner at Rs. 2000/- per square meter, whereas learned AGP, by relying upon subsequent opinion of the Town Planning Department at Exh.61, contended that valuation assessed was at Rs. 115/- per square meter and the same has been awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. We may also record that the Reference Court has misdirected itself by giving weightage to the document at Exh.32 which was by way of explanation of the Chief Town Planner while justifying valuation assessed by him at Rs. 2000/- per square meter of the land in question. 18. In order to consider controversy on this point, three documents are required to be taken into consideration. One is the document at Exh.26 addressed by the Chief Town Planner to the Special Land Acquisition Officer dated 11.9.2002. Another is the document at Exh.32 and the third is the document at Exh.60. A letter dated 11.9.2002 Exh.26 addressed by the Chief Town Planner shows that it is not assessment of the valuation by the Valuation Committee constituted for such purpose or at-least there is no reference of the meeting of the Valuation Committee constituted for such purpose. Further, in the said letter, there is reference of allotment of the land for Infocity by the State Government. Further, in the said letter, there is reference of allotment of the land for Infocity by the State Government. There is also reference of the fact that the land in question is undeveloped land, but on the aspect of potentiality, it has been mentioned that as per the development plan of Gandhinagar Urban Development Authority (GUDA), the land falls in the institutional zone and 1.5 FSI is available and, therefore, there can be construction of ground floor + 9 floors. Keeping in view the said aspect, he has assessed the valuation at Rs. 2000/- per square meter. It further appears that after receipt of the letter dated 11.9.2002, further details were called for by the Special Land Acquisition Officer about justification for assessment of the value at Rs. 2000/- per square meter and the Chief Town Planner vide letter dated 16.11.2002 at Exh.32 has shown five reasons justifying his assessment of Rs. 2000/- per square meter. (i) One reason is that the land is located in Gandhinagar City. The same is factually incorrect inasmuch as the land on the date when acquisition was to be made was located at village Dholakuva and not included in the capital project. It is only by virtue of the notification under Section 4 of the Act in the present case, the land is included in Gandhinagar Capital Project and, therefore, valuation is to be considered prior to the notification under Section 4 of the Act and at the relevant point of time, the land in question could not be said as falling in Gandhinagar City. Under the circumstances, the first ground cannot be said as valid. (ii) Second ground mentioned is that nearby the land in question, public facilities are available. Which type of public facilities are available are not mentioned, but the fact remains that nearby there is Infocity and may be that facility of public road may be available, but all such facilities are out-side the land in question and it has not been considered that no public facilities were available within the land in question on the date when the notification under Section 4 of the Act was published since it was purely an agricultural land. (iii) Third ground mentioned is that no substantial deduction will be made over the land in question and the area can be considered as Final Plot in the Town Planning Scheme. (iii) Third ground mentioned is that no substantial deduction will be made over the land in question and the area can be considered as Final Plot in the Town Planning Scheme. The said ground is also on non-existing premise inasmuch as at the relevant point of time, even as per his earlier communication dated 11.9.2002 at Exh.26, the land was in development plan and there was no Town Planning Scheme whatsoever in existence. Unless and until, preliminary Town Planning Scheme is framed, no opinion could be expressed that the whole area can be treated as Final Plot without there being any common deduction to be made in the Town Planning Scheme. Therefore, the third ground cannot be accepted. (iv) Fourth ground mentioned is the same as that of communication vide letter dated 11.9.2002 at Exh.26 wherein on the aspect of potentiality of the land, is taken into consideration. (v) Fifth ground mentioned is that nearby the land, State road and main city are being passed. (vi) Sixth ground mentioned is that for the area of Sector No. 1 and for the area of Sector No. 2, upset price fixed for the land for allotment of residential purpose is at Rs. 3060/- and Rs. 3340/-per square meter respectively. 19. We may record that allotment of land in any sector area for residential purpose that too of very very small area cannot be equated with big chunk of land admeasuring 20000 square meters that too having the character of agricultural land. Further, what is the size of the plot for which upset price was fixed at Rs. 3060/- or Rs. 3340/- per square meter is also not mentioned. Under these circumstances, comparison as referred to in the letter at Exh.32 cannot be accepted unless the area is comparable area. We may also record that justification vide letter at Exh.32 and the details mentioned therein were to maintain the first letter dated 11.9.2002 Exh.26 that the price would be Rs. 2000/- per square meter, but it was not for showing increase of the price than Rs. 2000/- per square meter. Unfortunately, the Reference Court instead of appreciating the matter from the said angle has extracted the details mentioned in the communication Exh.32 and has arrived at the market value at Rs. 3500/- per square meter which in our view is ex-facie erroneous approach on the part of the Reference Court. 2000/- per square meter. Unfortunately, the Reference Court instead of appreciating the matter from the said angle has extracted the details mentioned in the communication Exh.32 and has arrived at the market value at Rs. 3500/- per square meter which in our view is ex-facie erroneous approach on the part of the Reference Court. If genuineness of the assessment of the price at Rs. 2000/- per square meter is to be further tested, it is not possible to ignore assessment made by the Town Planner, Valuation Department of Ahmedabad for the land in question for which the document is produced at Exh.61 whereby the Town Planner, Ahmedabad has, after taking into consideration the sale instances of the land in question, assessed the market value at Rs. 115/- per square meter. Under the circumstances, it appears that if the valuation is to be traced on the basis of the opinion of the expert, i.e. Town Planner, there are two conflicting opinions. One opinion of the Chief Town Planner states the market price at Rs. 2000/- per square meter, whereas another opinion of the Town Planner at Ahmedabad states the market price at Rs. 115/- per square meter. No explanation has come on record in the evidence before the Reference Court for supporting either of it. Another important aspect is that in none of the opinions average price worked out for allotment of the land by the Government for establishment of the project of Infocity is considered. Only aspect is that the representation was made that the company which was allotted the land for establishment of Infocity i.e. Creative Infocity Limited has allotted the land to different entrepreneurs at Rs. 3500/- per square meter, but the same is not accepted by the Town Planner, Ahmedabad in the opinion Exh.61. So far as the Chief Town Planner is concerned, neither in the document Exh.26 nor in the justification at Exh.32, he has considered the price fixed by the Government for allotment of the land for the project of Infocity. 20. At this stage, we may record that the contention was raised by learned Counsel for the respondents that the Creative Infocity Limited had allotted the land to various industrial entrepreneurs for establishment of various projects at Rs. 3500/- per square meter. 20. At this stage, we may record that the contention was raised by learned Counsel for the respondents that the Creative Infocity Limited had allotted the land to various industrial entrepreneurs for establishment of various projects at Rs. 3500/- per square meter. However, the said contention was without there being any specific details available on record about the date on which allotment has been made. Further, even if such contention is to be considered for the sake of examination, it cannot be compared with the price of the land in question because after the Government has allotted the land to the Creative Infocity Limited for the project of Infocity, the basic facilities like water, drainage, electricity and other infrastructure facilities like road etc. are to be created and thereafter allotment may be available to entrepreneurs. For considering the price of Rs. 3500/- per square meter, the cost factor borne by the developer i.e. Creative Infocity Limited is required to be taken into consideration. Unless all such evidence are on record, it is not possible to accept the contention that since Creative Infocity Limited has allotted the land to the industrial entrepreneurs at Rs. 3500/- per square meter, the same should be treated as market value of the land in question, more particularly, when even the date on which allotments have been made has not come on record. Under the circumstances, the said contention is without merit and cannot be accepted. 21. The aforesaid observations and discussion would lead us to record conclusion that the opinion of the Chief Town Planner at Exh.26 and for assessment of the market value at Rs. 2000/- per square meter and even the opinion of the Town Planner, Ahmedabad for assessing the market value at Rs. 115/- per square meter, both do not deserve to be accepted for tracing the correct assessment of the market value. Hence, the contention raised by the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties for supporting opinion of the Chief Town Planner and/or of the Town Planner, Ahmedabad deserves to be rejected. 22. Aforesaid takes us to examine the contention raised by learned Counsel for the appellants that this Court in the case of acquisition of the land at village Sargasan had assessed the market value of the land in question at Rs. 22. Aforesaid takes us to examine the contention raised by learned Counsel for the appellants that this Court in the case of acquisition of the land at village Sargasan had assessed the market value of the land in question at Rs. 231/- per square meter in case where the notification under Section 4 of the Act was published on 20.5.1993 and, therefore, it was submitted that by considering appreciation at the rate of 10% per annum from 1993 until 2002, the Court may assess the market value and fix the compensation. 23. Perusal of the said decision shows that in the said case of First Appeal No. 4069 of 2007 decided on 11.4.2008, this Court had relied upon earlier decision of this Court dated 14.9.1994 in First Appeal Nos. 704 of 1993 to 729 of 1993 for acquisition of the land at village Vavol admeasuring 181504 square meters which was the case where the notification under Section 4 of the Act was published on 7.7.1983 and this Court had in the said decision fixed the market value at Rs. 50/- per square meter. It appears that thereafter, this Court had arrived at the price at Rs. 231/- per square meter by considering appreciation at the rate of 10% per annum. Therefore, the basis in the said judgment is assessment of market value made of acquisition project wherein the notification under Section 4 of the Act was published on 7.7.1983 roughly about 19 years prior to the acquisition in the present case. Further important aspect is that, in the said case this Court had no occasion to consider availability of the sale instances of allotment of the land by the Government for the project of Infocity in the year 1999 and the price fixed for such purpose. Further, the distance between the villages Sargasan and Dholakuva is stated to be about 5 kms from the land in question. Further, the distance between the villages Sargasan and Dholakuva is stated to be about 5 kms from the land in question. In any event, when the sale instances for allotment of the land of Infocity which is just located at the distance of half a kilometer are available and this Court had no occasion to consider allotment of the land for the project of Infocity and the price fixed by the Government for such purpose coupled with the aspect that acquisition project for the land at village Sargasan is about 9 years prior to the acquisition project in the present case, it is not possible for us to accept the contention of learned Counsel for the appellants that we may be guided by the valuation fixed for acquisition project of village Sargasan and thereafter to consider appreciation at the rate of 10% per annum for the land in question. Hence, the said decision is of no help to the appellants. In the same manner, the judgment dated 14.9.1994 of this Court in First Appeal No. 1983 of 2001 and allied matters would also not be of any help to the appellants since in the said case, the notification under Section 4 of the Act was prior to 19 years i.e. 7.7.1983 and no facts situation has come on record in the present case which exists in the said case. 24. At this stage we may refer to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Pal Singh and Ors vs. Union Territory of Chandigarh, reported in AIR 1993 SC 225 , it has been inter alia observed that while considering the earlier judgement for acquisition of the land and fixation of the market value in the nearby vicinity, due regard is required to be given to all attendant facts and circumstances and thereafter the matter is to be considered for determining the market value. Therefore, if the evidence came on record, goes to show that mere reliance or mere consideration of the previous judgement may result into not a correct assessment of the market value, it is not obligatory on the part of the Court to consider the previous judgement and to act accordingly only. In the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Kanwar Singh & Ors etc. etc. In the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Kanwar Singh & Ors etc. etc. vs. Union of India, reported in AIR 1999 SC 317 , the aforesaid principle has been reiterated for giving weightage or otherwise to the previous judgement of an adjoining village and to make a departure therefrom if the situation and potentiality of the lands are found to be different. The same principle has been reiterated in the subsequent decision of the Apex Court in the case of The General Manager, Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. vs. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel & Anr., reported at Judgement Today 2008 (9) SC 480. In the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Lal Chand vs. Union of India, reported in AIR 2010 SC 170 , similar principle has been reiterated. 25. Learned Counsel for the respondent claimants did contend that for another land of the capital project located at Sector No. 8 of Indroda village, the acquisition proceedings had started and in the said case vide order dated 16.3.2001 the Government decided to acquire the land by paying compensation at Rs. 4880/- per square meter for the land admeasuring 38866 square meters and he submitted that the said order of the Government is at Exh.74 and, therefore, it was submitted that the market value of the land in question would be exceeding Rs. 3500/- per square meter than assessed by the Reference Court. 26. Perusal of the said document at Exh.74 shows that it is pertaining to the land at village Indroda which is different village than the village Dholakuva in the present case. Further the Government has recorded peculiar circumstances in the resolution. Not only that, but while fixing the price at Rs. 4880/-, it is on the premise that the land is in the residential zone and is already put to use for residential purpose and at no point of time, possession of the land was to be taken as if it was agricultural land which is in the present case. Under these circumstances, reliance placed by giving parity cannot be accepted, more particularly, when for the land in question in the nearby area, sale instances and valuation made by the Government are available for allotment of the land to Infocity as observed and discussed hereinabove. Under these circumstances, reliance placed by giving parity cannot be accepted, more particularly, when for the land in question in the nearby area, sale instances and valuation made by the Government are available for allotment of the land to Infocity as observed and discussed hereinabove. At this stage, we may refer to the case of Shagunthala (dead) through LRs vs. Special Tehsildar (LA) & Ors., reported in AIR 2010 SC 784 the Apex Court after considering its earlier decision in the case of Atma Singh (Dead) through LRs and Ors. vs. State of Haryana and Anr., reported in AIR 2008 SC 709 , has observed that the question whether a land has potential value or not, is primarily one of facts depending upon its condition, situation, user to which it is put and whether it is reasonably capable of being put and proximity to residential, commercial or industrial areas or institutions and thereafter the market value may be determined by the Court. Hence, the said contention cannot be accepted. 27. It was next contended by learned Counsel for the respondent claimants that if the price realised in the auction sale of different lands by the Government in various residential areas of Gandhinagar are considered, the price would be much higher than Rs. 3500/- per square meter. One of the sale instances as was produced before the Reference Court for the sale instance of 65.50 square meter at Rs. 13,68,750/- was pressed in service. Various other sale instances which were also produced before the Reference Court for similar type of lands in the residential sector were pressed in service and, therefore, it was submitted that if such valuation is considered and auction price is taken into consideration, it would leave room for enhancement of compensation as against the reduction as contended by the appellants. 28. Whereas on behalf of the appellants, it was submitted that auction price realised cannot be taken into consideration. It was also submitted that in the sector areas which are already included in Gandhinagar City for residential purpose, there is full development of the road, light, electricity etc. and it cannot be compared with the agricultural land at village Dholakuva which is acquired for the present project and, therefore, it was submitted that those sale instances cannot be considered for tracing the market value of the land in question. 29. and it cannot be compared with the agricultural land at village Dholakuva which is acquired for the present project and, therefore, it was submitted that those sale instances cannot be considered for tracing the market value of the land in question. 29. We may record that all such sale instances have also not been accepted by the Reference Court in the impugned judgment. Further, the area of 62.50 square meters is not comparable sale instance with the acquisition of the present land admeasuring about 20000 square meters. Therefore, when the sale instances are not of the comparable land, it have been rightly not considered by the Reference Court. Further, it appears that learned AGP is right in submitting that residential area in various sectors of Gandhinagar city stands on altogether different footing in comparison of the land in question inasmuch as in Gandhinagar city where the lands are allotted on auction basis by the Government. Therefore, fully developed area wherein all facilities as that of road, light, electricity, public transportation and other incidental facilities are available. Fully developed residential area of planned city cannot be compared with the agricultural land that too located in the industrial area. Under the circumstances, we find that sale instances by way of auction or by way of fixation of upset price for various residential small plots cannot be considered and they are rightly rejected by the Reference Court. 30. At this satage we may refer to the decision in the case of Executive Engineer, Karnataka Housing Board vs. Land Acquisition Officer & Ors., reported in AIR 2011 SC 781 , wherein the Apex Court had observed that in normal circumstances, the price realized in the auctions may not reflect the fair market value and in the event if such aspects are required to be considered, they may be considered with reasonable deduction. 31. In view of the aforesaid observations and discussion, we find that appropriate market price of the land can be assessed at Rs. 770/- per square meter for the purpose of fixation of compensation. However, out of the said amount Rs. 115/- per square meter has already been paid as compensation and, therefore, the net amount of additional compensation shall be Rs. 655/- per square meter as additional compensation. 32. 770/- per square meter for the purpose of fixation of compensation. However, out of the said amount Rs. 115/- per square meter has already been paid as compensation and, therefore, the net amount of additional compensation shall be Rs. 655/- per square meter as additional compensation. 32. Aforesaid would take us to examine the aspect of fixation of awarding of rental compensation for the period prior to the notification under Section 4 of the Act. Learned AGP for the appellants contended that the Reference Court has committed great error in awarding interest under Section 28 of the Act for the period from the date of taking over of the possession until the amount is realised. She submitted that as per the decision of the Apex Court in the case of R.L. Jain (D) By LRs vs. DDA and others, reported in (2004) 4 SCC 79 , it has been held that no interest under Section 28 or 34 of the Act can be awarded for the period prior to the notification under Section 4 of the Act. She submitted that, therefore, that part of the award passed by the Reference Court, in any case, deserves to be quashed and set aside. 33. Whereas learned Counsel appearing for the respondent claimants contended that, in any event, once the possession is taken over, the land owners are deprived of their property and if they are deprived of their property prior to the notification under Section 4 of the Act, it is unauthorized action for which compensation, in any case, was required to be paid, but has not been paid. It was submitted that even in the award, there is reference to the same and, therefore, the Reference Court is justified in awarding interest as per Section 28 of the Act from the date of taking over of the possession. 34. It is true that as per the decision of the Apex Court in R.L. Jain (Supra), it has been ruled that Sections 28 and 34 of the Act do not provide for awarding of interest for the period prior to the notification under Section 4 of the Act in the event the possession is taken over prior to the publication of the notification under Section 4 of the Act. However, the matter does not end there. In the very decision, the Apex Court at paragraph 18 has observed thus : “18. However, the matter does not end there. In the very decision, the Apex Court at paragraph 18 has observed thus : “18. In a case where the land owner is dispossessed prior to the issuance of preliminary notification under Section 4(1) of the Act the government merely takes possession of the land but the title thereof continues to vest with the land owner. It is fully open for the land owner to recover the possession of his land by taking appropriate legal proceedings. He is therefore only entitled to get rent or damages for use and occupation for the period the government retains possession of the property. Where possession is taken prior to the issuance of the preliminary notification, in our opinion, it will be just and equitable that the Collector may also determine the rent or damages for use of the property to which the land owner is entitled while determining the compensation amount payable to the land owner for the acquisition of the property. The provision of Section 48 of the Act lend support to such a course of action. For delayed payment of such amount appropriate interest at prevailing bank rate maybe awarded.” (Emphasis supplied) 35. Aforesaid shows that it has been held by the Apex Court that where the possession is taken over prior to issuance of the preliminary notification, it will be just and equitable that the Collector may also determine rent or damages for use of the property to which the land owner is entitled while determining the compensation amount payable to the land owner for acquisition of the property. It has been also observed by the Apex Court that for delayed payment of such amount, appropriate interest at the prevailing bank rate may also be awarded. Further, if the matter is strictly examined in light of the provisions of the Watan Abolition Act, it appears that the possession of the land in question after enactment of the Watan Abolition Act was resumed by the Government under the said Act. Thereafter, as the lands were shown in the revenue record as that of the Government, the possession was taken over in the year 1966 by the Executive Engineer of the capital project. Thereafter, as the lands were shown in the revenue record as that of the Government, the possession was taken over in the year 1966 by the Executive Engineer of the capital project. Therefore, one view may be available to contend that the claimants could be entitled for compensation under the Watan Abolition Act, however, it appears that as per Jasol Committee’s report, the rights of the land owners were crystallized on account of payment of occupancy price prior to taking over of the possession and the land was to be regranted by formal order in favour of the claimants, but the orders were not passed. Not only that, but the right of the claimants as occupiers and entitlement of regrant were recommended to be conferred upon the original claimants or their predecessor in title. The said report of the Jasol Committee as referred to hereinabove was accepted by the Government and accordingly, the land was treated as deemed regranted to the claimants from the date on which they were entitled to, which is prior to 1966. Not only that, but the basis of their right in the land as regrantee for lawfully occupants as per the Watan Abolition Act having been found accepted, the proposal for acquisition of the land was moved. Under these circumstances, the possession as was taken from 1966 until the notification under Section 4 of the Act was published could be said as deprivation of the property to the land owners by the State without there being any authority under the law. In the acquisition proceedings, while passing the award under Section 11 of the act, the Special Land Acquisition Officer has also recognized the rights for compensation at paragraph 15. Of course, he has used the language of rental amount as per the Government Resolution. As observed earlier in the award, the Special Land Acquisition Officer has not quantified compensation under the said head i.e. for taking over of the possession from 23.3.1966 until the notification under Section 4 of the Act was published. If the aforesaid observations of the Apex Court in the case of R.L. Jain (Supra) are considered, it was required for the Land Acquisition Officer to fix compensation simultaneously while passing the award. If the aforesaid observations of the Apex Court in the case of R.L. Jain (Supra) are considered, it was required for the Land Acquisition Officer to fix compensation simultaneously while passing the award. If there is failure on the part of the Land Acquisition Officer to award compensation under the said head and dispute is raised under Section 18 of the Act, the Reference Court will have jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the same and to award appropriate compensation. 36. Mr. Shelat, learned Counsel for the respondent claimants, by relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Madishetti Bala Ramul (D) By LRs. vs. The Land Acquisition Officer, reported in Judgment Today, 2007 (8) SC 180, contended that after considering earlier decision of the Apex Court in the case of R.L. Jain (Supra) in a case where the possession was taken over 9 years prior to the notification under Section 4 of the Act, the Apex Court has found it proper to award compensation at 15% per annum and, therefore, he submitted that the same criteria may be applied even in the present case. 37. Whereas learned AGP contended that as per the award of the Land Acquisition Officer, the claimants at the most could be entitled to the rental amount of the land in question. She also submitted that rental compensation was assessed by the Government and the amount of Rs. 6408/- and the amount of Rs. 5310/- are already paid to the respective claimants and, therefore, she submitted that the same should be sufficient. It was also contended that valuation as made by the Reference Court on the date when the notification under Section 4 of the Act was published cannot be taken into consideration for the purpose of assessment of the rental value or compensation to be considered from 1966 roughly about 36 years back and, therefore, she submitted that valuation is to be made of the land in question as prevailing then for the respective period and thereafter compensation can be assessed. However, she contended that as per the resolution of the Government, rental compensation would be Rs. 4.5% per annum until 1984 (until the amendment was made in the Land Acquisition Act) and after 1984 from 24.9.1984 it is to be calculated at the rate of 9% per annum. However, she contended that as per the resolution of the Government, rental compensation would be Rs. 4.5% per annum until 1984 (until the amendment was made in the Land Acquisition Act) and after 1984 from 24.9.1984 it is to be calculated at the rate of 9% per annum. She, therefore, submitted that it was accordingly calculated and rental compensation is already paid. 38. We find considerable force in the submission of learned AGP that even if rental compensation is to be paid for deprivation of the land to the land owner or occupant as the case may be, valuation cannot be considered as the basis as assessed in the year 2002, but in order to consider rental compensation, valuation is to be made or considered for the period prevailing then for respective rental compensation. We may also record that it is not a matter where possession has been taken over just few years prior to the notification under Section 4 of the Act, but it is a case where possession was taken over before long span of 36 years prior to the notification under Section 4 of the Act. 39. In order to rationalize the situation and thereby to find out the fair market value of the land in question at the relevant point of time for the purpose or arriving at a reasonable rental compensation, it appears to us that the rental compensation should be decided on the basis of the fair market value of the property at the relevant point of time for each year.. Further it is required to be appreciated that if a flat rate appreciation or depreciation is considered by taking the basis of the prevailing market value, it may reach to the figure of ‘0’ (zero) value within a span of 10 years, if reverse depreciation in the value is considered at the rate of 10% per annum and if it is considered at the rate of 7% per annum, then also, it may result into ‘0’ (zero) value at the end of 14 years and consequence may arise that for the subsequent period beyond the aforesaid 10 years or 14 years, as the case may be, the rental compensation may not be available at all, since the value would be ‘0’ (zero). Such situation, in our view, cannot be termed as a reasonable, nor such would bring about the position enabling the original claimant(s)/land-owner(s) to claim any compensation. Under these circumstances, we find that it would be reasonable to apply the depreciation in the prevailing market value on the date when the Notification under Section 4 of the Act was published on a reducing balance method and thereafter whatever is the value available for the respective year the rental compensation, as observed and may be directed hereinafter, can be arrived at accordingly by applying a fixed percentage, as may be found proper. 40. The aforesaid would lead us to examine the aspects about the computation of rental compensation. It is true that the awarding of interest can also be treated as one of the compensatory measures for deprivation of the property to the land owner. However, the distinguishing aspect in the said matter is that the value of the principal amount remains unaltered or at the most, it may result into appreciation by compounding manner only. To say in other words, if a particular amount is invested in a fixed deposit receipt with a Bank and interest is earned on the said amount, at the end of the maturity period, the principal amount would remain the same and there will be only addition of the interest which may be earned by way of compensatory measure. Such situation is not completely at par with the compensation to be paid by way of rental compensation. In a matter where any immovable property held by any person, and if he is permitting any other party to use it, he may earn rental amount from such property and such relationship of rental basis may continue for a particular span, but upon the expiry of the said rental contract or otherwise, the owner of the property will also be benefited by appreciation in the property and additionally he will get the rental compensation for the interregnum period. Such aspects would not be available in a matter where particular amount is invested with the Bank in any deposits and the person earns the interest therefrom. Such aspects would not be available in a matter where particular amount is invested with the Bank in any deposits and the person earns the interest therefrom. Under these circumstances, we find that it would be reasonable to award the compensation by applying the principles of rental compensation and not to award interest, since the distinguishing feature in the land acquisition matter is that the owner of the property is already to be benefited by the prevailing market value at the time when Notification under Section 4 of the Act is published. In the event the possession is taken over prior to the notification under Section 4 of the Act, and the compensation is to be fixed for the period prior to the Notification under Section 4, it would be reasonable to award compensation by considering the criteria of rental income or rental compensation, which would leave room for earning the appreciation by owner of the property, which ultimately to be realized taking the basis of the market value on the date of Notification under Section 4 of the Act. We may also record that we are inclined to apply the said principle, keeping in view the particular aspect that the possession came to be taken over in the present matter before a long span of 36 years prior to the Notification under Section 4 of the Act. 41. The aforesaid would further lead us to examine the reasonable amount or a reasonable percentage of rental compensation. It appears that even as per the State Government after 1984 onwards the reasonable rental compensation is to be calculated at the rate of 9% per annum on account of the amendment made for enhancing of the interest, etc., in the Act. Prior to 1984, the rental compensation even as per the policy of the State Government was 4.5%. Further, in any case, as observed earlier, the owners/occupants of the property are to earn appreciation in the property for the aforesaid period. 42. Prior to 1984, the rental compensation even as per the policy of the State Government was 4.5%. Further, in any case, as observed earlier, the owners/occupants of the property are to earn appreciation in the property for the aforesaid period. 42. Under these circumstances, we find that it would be reasonable to calculate the amount of rental compensation at the rate of 4.5% per annum from 1966 until 1983 and after 1984 until the Notification under Section 4 of the Act was published in the year 2002, the rental compensation should be calculated at the rate of 9% per annum on the value of the property as prevailing then from time to time as stated hereinafter. 43. As observed earlier it has been found by us that their market value of the land in question in the year 2002 when the Notification under Section 4 of the Act was published was at Rs. 770/- per sq. mtrs. However, for the period from 1999 to 2002 i.e. for a period of three years, the appreciation, as observed by us earlier, is calculated at the rate of 12.5%. Therefore, there will be reverse depreciation on the figure of Rs. 770/- at the rate of 12.5% per annum on a reducing balance method. However, after 1999 until 1989 for a span of 10 years there will be reverse depreciation at the rate of 10% p.a. After 1988 for a further span of 10 years i.e. up to 1978, there will be reverse depreciation at the rate of 9% per annum and in the next span of 10 years prior to 1977 i.e. up to 1967, there will be reverse depreciation at the rate of 8% per annum and for the period of 1966, there will be reverse depreciation at the rate of 7% per annum. Further, while calculating the depreciation, the method shall be applied on reducing balance system and on a net figure of the valuation prevailing for the respective year, the rental compensation at the rate of 9% per annum or the 4.5% per annum, as the case may be, as observed earlier, will be applied. The aforesaid amount, which may be arrived at for the respective year shall be a rental compensation payable to the original claimants by way of a reasonable compensation for depreciation of the property, otherwise than in accordance with law. The aforesaid amount, which may be arrived at for the respective year shall be a rental compensation payable to the original claimants by way of a reasonable compensation for depreciation of the property, otherwise than in accordance with law. The next aspect, which may be required to be considered is the awarding of interest on the aforesaid amount, which has been remained un-paid from the date on which the rental compensation had become due until the award and thereafter from the date of the award until the actual payment is made. Once the liability of compensation as was required to be paid and has not been paid, the Act recognizes the interest at the rate of 9% per annum for the first year and 15% per annum for the subsequent year until the amount is deposited in the Court or is paid to the original claimants, whichever is earlier. Further, on the aforesaid amount, the claimants are not to earn any appreciation by way of enhancement of the principal amount of compensation. Under these circumstances, it appears to us that it would be reasonable to award interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the end of the respective year of rental compensation until the award and thereafter at the rate of 9% for the first year and 15% per annum for the subsequent year until the amount of rental compensation is deposited in the Court or is paid to the claimant, whichever is earlier. 44. In the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Madishetti Bala Ramul (D) By LRs. vs. The Land Acquisition Officer (Supra), the Apex Court had no occasion to consider the question about the rental compensation to be considered by considering the aspect that the owners of the property were also to earn appreciation for the period during which the Notification under Section 4 of the Act was not published. Further, in the facts before the Apex Court, it was a span of few years, whereas in the present case, the distinguishing feature is that the span is a very long span of 36 years. Under these circumstances, we find that the said decision is of no help to the original claimants to seek the compensation at the rate of 15% per annum for the period prior to the Notification under Section 4 of the Act. 45. Under these circumstances, we find that the said decision is of no help to the original claimants to seek the compensation at the rate of 15% per annum for the period prior to the Notification under Section 4 of the Act. 45. In view of the aforesaid observations and discussions, we find that the judgement and the award passed by the Reference Court for granting additional amount of compensation, exceeding the amount of Rs. 655/- deserves to be quashed and set aside . Hence, the same is quashed and set aside with the observations that the original claimants shall be entitled to the additional compensation of Rs. 655/- per sq. mtrs., (Rs.770/- as the gross compensation minus the amount of Rs. 115/- as the compensation already paid, hence net Rs.655/- as additional compensation). The other statutory benefits as awarded by the Reference Court for 12% under Section 23(1-A) of the Act, Solatium at the rate of 30% under Section 23(2) of the Act and interest at the rate of 9% per annum for the first year and 15% for the subsequent year from the date of Notification under Section 4 of the Act as per Section 28 of the Act are not required to be interfered with save and except to the extent that on account of the reduction of the principal amount of additional compensation of such amount shall proportionately get reduced. 46. However, so far as the awarding of the interest at the rate of 9% per annum for the first year and 15% per annum for the subsequent year by the Reference Court from the date of possession until the date of publication of Notification under Section 4 of the Act is concerned, the said part of the judgement and award of the Reference Court is set aside with the further direction that the original claimant shall be entitled to the rental compensation at the rate of 4.5% per annum from 1966 until 1984 and at the rate of 9% per annum from 1984 until the Notification under Section 4 of the Act was published in the year 2002. The aforesaid amount of rental compensation shall be calculated on the basis of valuation of the land as may be arrived at on a reducing balance method after applying the depreciation in the value from the market value of Rs. The aforesaid amount of rental compensation shall be calculated on the basis of valuation of the land as may be arrived at on a reducing balance method after applying the depreciation in the value from the market value of Rs. 770/- for the year 2002 as under:— (i) The depreciation @ 12.5% p.a. From 2000 to 1999. (ii) The depreciation @ 10% p.a. From 1998 to 1988. (iii) The depreciation @ 9% p.a. From 1987 to 1977. (iv) The depreciation @ 8% p.a. From 1976 to 1966. 47. It is further observed and directed that the original claimants shall also be entitled to the interest on the aforesaid total amount of rental compensation from the date on which the rental compensation became payable i.e. end of the respective year until the award at the rate of 9% p.a., and from the date of the award i.e. 30.10.2003 at the rate of 9% for the first year and 15% p.a., for the subsequent year until the amount is deposited in the Court and/or paid to the original claimants whichever is earlier. The rental compensation already paid by the Government shall be given set off. 48. The appeals are partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs. 49. In view of the above, the cross-objections preferred by the claimants are dismissed. 50. Record and proceedings be sent back to Reference Court. It will be open to the parties to move the Reference Court for giving effect to the present judgement. The Reference Court shall make an attempt to give effect within 8 (eight) weeks after receipt of the present judgement and order. P P P P P