JUDGMENT : R.D. Kothari, J. Mr. Yatin Soni, learned advocate for the appellants has submitted that the claim for compensation is supported by and covered up by the decision rendered in the case of 'Gujarat Housing Board' Case i.e. L.A.R. Case No. 139/2001 which is affirmed by Division Bench of this Court. In the present case, the learned Reference Court has awarded compensation to the claimant at the rate of Rs. 23/- per sq.mtr. while the appellants have claimed Rs. 500/- per sq.mtr. In Gujarat Housing Board case (supra) this Court affirmed the order of the learned reference Court, wherein, later Court has awarded Rs. 303/- to the claimants. 2. Brief relevant facts are as under:- The appellants lands are situated at village Chharodi, which is acquired for the purpose of National Highway No.8C (NH 8C). The appellants lands are agricultural lands of survey Nos. 23, 19 etc. The notification u/s.4 and u/s.6 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 23/1/1992 and 26/03/1993 respectively. Thereafter, the Land Acquisition Officer has passed award on 11/10/1993. The said Land Acquisition Officer has awarded Rs. 15/- per sq.mtr. to the appellants. Their award was carried before the Reference Court. The Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) has decided a group of three reference cases being Land Reference Case Nos. 73 of 2001 to 75 of 2001. Before the Reference Court, the claimants have initially claimed Rs. 200/- per sq.mtr. Thereafter, the claim was amended and enhanced to Rs. 200/- to Rs. 500/- per sq.mtr. before the Reference Court. In L.A.R. Case No.73/2001- the land area of 1,749 sq.mtr.; in L.A.R. Case No. 74/2001, land area of 504 sq.mtr. and in L.A.R. Case No.75/2001, land area of 1305 sq.mtr. were acquired. On behalf of claimant, one Ashaji Dahyaji has deposed at Exh.34 who was cross-examined by the opponent and on behalf of State, Dy. Collector at Exh.52 is examined. 3. Findings of the learned Reference Court briefly stated are as under:- (i) Assertion of the claimants that they were taking three crops in a year is not supported by any documentary evidences. (ii) There is no single documentary evidence to show that the claimants' land is irrigated land or the land having an irrigation facility. (iii) Village form No. 7 x 12 shows that the claimants were taking only one crop in a year i.e. crop of rice only. (ii) There is no single documentary evidence to show that the claimants' land is irrigated land or the land having an irrigation facility. (iii) Village form No. 7 x 12 shows that the claimants were taking only one crop in a year i.e. crop of rice only. (iv) The report of Nayab Nagar Niyojak produced at Mark 38/9, in which, the Land Acquisition Officer has stated that the land acquired at village-Jagatpur, Chharodi in the year 1999 at a price of Rs. 18/- to 30/-. (v) In the said report, it is opined that the price may be fixed at Rs. 23/- per sq.mtr. (vi) Despite the above opinion, the Court says that the Collector is of the opinion that Rs. 18/- per sq.mtr. would be fair price of the land. (vii) The Reference Court considering that the land is highway touch land and it is acquired for national highway purpose, hence it held that proper market value of the land would be Rs. 23/- per sq.mtr. 4. It would appear that the learned Reference Court has arrived at market price of Rs. 23/- per sq.mtr. by placing reliance on the report of Nayab Nagar Niyojak only. This report is heavily attacked by Mr. Soni, learned advocate for the appellants. Mr. Soni, learned advocate for the appellants submitted that the report is inadmissible in law and the learned Judge has seriously erred in relying on the said report. 5. Mr. Soni, learned advocate for the appellants submitted that on behalf of claimants, reliance was placed on the judgment passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmedabad (Rural) in L.A.R. No. 139 of 2001. The learned Judge has seriously erred in distinguishing that judgment, by observing that in the present case, the land is acquired for national highway purpose. It was submitted that the learned Judge has erred in distinguishing the judgment passed in L.A.R.No.139 of 2001 on the ground that, in that case, the lands of different village were acquired and the purpose of acquiring body was different. It was also pointed out that the judgment in L.A.R.Case No.139/2001 was carried in appeal by the 'Gujarat Housing Board' in First Appeal No.1971/2003 to 1986/2003, wherein, the Division Bench of this Court has upheld the order passed by the learned Reference Court in L.A.R. No. 139/2001. Strong reliance is placed on judgment of this Court in that case. 6. It was also pointed out that the judgment in L.A.R.Case No.139/2001 was carried in appeal by the 'Gujarat Housing Board' in First Appeal No.1971/2003 to 1986/2003, wherein, the Division Bench of this Court has upheld the order passed by the learned Reference Court in L.A.R. No. 139/2001. Strong reliance is placed on judgment of this Court in that case. 6. At the time of hearing, Mr. Soni, learned advocate has referred to the deposition of the claimant and deposition of one Mr. K.L. Parmar, Dy. Collector, who was examined as a witness by the other side. Learned advocate for the appellants has also referred to the Map produced on record, revenue entries, certificate issued by the panchayat and other documents. Mr. Soni, learned advocate has also drawn attention to few cases, which are referred herein after. 7. Mr. Bhavesh Hazare, learned AGP on the other hand has supported the judgment under challenged. Learned AGP has submitted that the market price stated in the report, is arrived at after taking into consideration the sale instances of comparable last of period proximate to the date of acquisition in the present case. Learned AGP submits that no interference is called for in the judgment passed by the learned Reference Court. 8. Passing of the order and recording conclusion by the learned Reference Court solely on the basis of Nayab Nagar Niyojak's report, is clearly erroneous. It may be stated that in conclusion itself learned Judge refers the said report as mark 38/9. That apart, the conclusion is recorded in that report by relying on some sale instances. It appears that the details of these sale instances are attached with this report as annexure at page 245 and 247. Therein, reference is made to different sale transactions. It refers the sale transactions entered into between the parties during January, 1989 to August, 1991. The price per sq.mtr. in this sale instances varies from 9.45 to 10.07. The State has not produced sale-deed of any of the sale instances. It appears that the transactions were entered into between private parties. In order to lend credibility to their assertion, the State ought to have produced sale-deed of these transactions. The other-side-claimant in that case would have opportunity to meet with the case of State. The State has not produced sale-deed of any of the sale instances. It appears that the transactions were entered into between private parties. In order to lend credibility to their assertion, the State ought to have produced sale-deed of these transactions. The other-side-claimant in that case would have opportunity to meet with the case of State. Credibility of report based conclusion of trial Court-is considerably weakened as the State has not examined any witnesses in support of report nor it has produced any of sale-deeds relying on which conclusion is drawn in report. 9. Mr. Soni, learned advocate for the appellants has drawn attention to the case of 'C.R. Nagaraja Shetty v. Special Land Acquisition Officer & Estate Officer & Anr.' reported in 2009 AIR SCW 2184'. The Hon'ble Apex Court has partly allowed the appeal and it was held in Para-6 of the judgment as under:- "Para-6 The High Court has increased the compensation from Rs. 27.50/- per square feet to Rs. 75/- per square feet. In the impugned judgment, the High Court observed that the concerned land was abutting the National Highway and was within 15 kilometres from Bangalore City Corporation limit and further that all-round development has taken place as industries have come up thereby. In this, the High Court relied upon a Division Bench judgment passed by the same High Court, wherein, it was found that the value of the nearby land was Rs. 62.50/- per square feet. The High Court ultimately held that since the said land referred to in the earlier judgment passed by it was 25-30 kilometres away from Bangalore Bus Station, the present land would deserve a netter rate than the one given in the earlier judgment, since it was only 15 kilometres away from the Bus Station. Accordingly, the High Court recorded a finding that the rate of Rs. 75/- per square feet would be a proper rate. We are satisfied with this finding of the High Court, as the Learned Counsel has not been able to show anything from the record to hold that the concerned land would deserve a higher price than the one awarded by the High Court. We are generally satisfied with the finding of the High Court and would choose to confirm the same. Thus, we hold that the High Court was right in awarding the rate of Rs. We are generally satisfied with the finding of the High Court and would choose to confirm the same. Thus, we hold that the High Court was right in awarding the rate of Rs. 75/- per square feet for the concerned land." (emphasis supplied) 10. Reliance was also placed in the case of 'Thakarsibhai Devjibhai & Ors. v. Executive Engineer & Anr.' reported in 2001 AIR SCW 2417. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held that distinction made by the Court on the basis of distance between similarly situated lands and presently acquired land and on the basis of largeness of the land-by clubbing the land together-is irrelevant and erroneous. It was held in Para-12 of the judgment is as under:- "Para-12 As we have said above the High Court fell into error by reducing the quantum of compensation on this basis. The reduction has been made for two reasons, one that the present acquisition is of larger area and the second the distance between the land under acquisition and Exh.16 is about 5 kms. With reference to question of acquisition being of a larger area, the errors, when we scan we find for the acquisition of each land owner, it could not be said that the acquisition is of a large area. Largeness is merely when each land holders land is clubbed together then the area becomes large. Each landowners holdings are of small area. Even otherwise visioning in the line with submission for the State we find Exh.16 is about two hectares of land which cannot be said to be of small piece of land. So far the other question of distance between the two classes of lands that by itself cannot derogate the claim of the claimant unless there are some such other materials to show that quality and potentiality of such land is inferior. However, distance between the land under Exh.16 and the present land even if they are 5 kms. Apart would not be relevant, the relevancy could be, their distances from the Viramgam town. We find, as per map produced by the State, the present acquired land is about 3 kms. away from it, while the land under Exh.16 is about two kilometres away from it. This difference is not such to lead to reduce the rate of compensation, specially on the facts of this case. We find, as per map produced by the State, the present acquired land is about 3 kms. away from it, while the land under Exh.16 is about two kilometres away from it. This difference is not such to lead to reduce the rate of compensation, specially on the facts of this case. In the present case, as we have recorded above, it has been found that the quality including potentiality of land between Exh.16 and the present one are similar. No evidence has been led on behalf of the State to find difference between the two. In view of this, the inference drawn by the High Court for reducing the compensation by Rs. 10/- per sq. mtr. Cannot be sustained." (emphasis supplied) 11. This Court in the case of 'Second Additional Special Land Acquisition Officer & Anr. v. Chunilal Gangaram & Ors.' reported in 1999 (2) GLR 1357 ' has agreed with the Reference Court, which in turn has placed reliance on its previous judgment passed earlier in the case, wherein, boundary of the village of that previously decided case attached to the boundary of the case on hand, was taken as relevant and reliable. Attention was drawn to Para-9 by the learned advocate. 12. Reliance was placed in the case of 'General Manager, ONGC Limit v. Chamanji Kuberji & Ors.' in First Appeal No.3795 of 2006 to First Appeal No.3799 of 2006 decided by this Court (Coram: Hon'ble The Chief Justice Mr. Bhaskar Bhattacharya & Mr. Justice J.B. Pardiwala) decided on 03/05/2013. In that case, the lands of respondents were acquired for O.N.G.C. purpose. The acquired lands were situated in the Village Pimplaj, Taluka & District Gandhinagar. The Land Acquisition Officer has awarded compensation of Rs. 22/- per sq.mtr. The claimants had filed reference before the Court at Gandhinagar, wherein, the Court has awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 353/- per sq.mtr. The O.N.G.C. has challenged the said order before this court. Therein, before this Court, the claimants had placed reliance on the judgment of this Court delivered earlier in case of village-Pethapur. In case of village-Pethapur also, the land was acquired for the purpose of appellant i.e. O.N.G.C. In that case, the learned Reference Court at Gandhinagar had awarded Rs. 327/- per sq.mtr. to the claimants. Therein, before this Court, the claimants had placed reliance on the judgment of this Court delivered earlier in case of village-Pethapur. In case of village-Pethapur also, the land was acquired for the purpose of appellant i.e. O.N.G.C. In that case, the learned Reference Court at Gandhinagar had awarded Rs. 327/- per sq.mtr. to the claimants. The appeal arising from that case before this Court being First Appeal No.2336 of 2007 with Cross Objection No. 110 of 2008 decided by this Court (Coram: Mr. Jayant Patel & Mr. C.L. Soni, JJ) on 21/06/2012. This Court was pleased to confirm the order of the learned Reference Court. In the case of General Manager, O.N.G.C. Limit v. Chamanji Kuberji & Ors. Case (Supra), this Court has placed reliance on judgment of this Court in First Appeal No.2336 of 2006 (supra) - Pethapur case. 13. The short question to be considered-is whether the claim of the claimants for compensation based on judgment delivered in First Appeal No.1971/2003 and other cases is acceptable or not? For the sake of convenience First Appeal No.1971/2003 is hereafter referred as Gujarat Housing Board case [GHB case] 14. In G.H.B. Case (Supra), the agricultural lands of village-Ognaj were acquired. In that case, the lands of claimants bearing survey Nos. 631/1, 631/2, 631/3 and 633/2 were acquired. The area of the lands under acquisition were 6880; 3237; 5767; 4856 & 304 sq. mtrs. respectively. The Land Acquisition Officer was pleased to award Rs. 67/- per sq.mtr. The Reference Court was pleased to fix the market value at Rs. 303/- per sq.mtr. The learned Reference Court has held that the claimants are entitled to Rs. 236/- per sq.mtr. as an additional compensation. In that case, the notification u/s.4 was issued on 16/12/1993. In appeal filed by G.H.B., the Division Bench of this Court has agreed with the order of learned Reference Court and was pleased to dismiss the appeal holding that "…...determination of the market price of the lands by the reference Court, is just and proper..." In the present case, one Ashaji is examined by the learned Reference Court at Exh.34. He is one of the claimants and in his evidence, he says that his village-Chharodi is one of the developed village of Dascroi Taluka. That the boundaries of village-Gota, Ognaj, Jagatpur is just adjoining their village. That the boundaries of Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation is only 5 kms. He is one of the claimants and in his evidence, he says that his village-Chharodi is one of the developed village of Dascroi Taluka. That the boundaries of village-Gota, Ognaj, Jagatpur is just adjoining their village. That the boundaries of Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation is only 5 kms. away and Nava Vadaj, Nirnaynagar area are only 4 kms. away. He says that the land acquired by the G.H.B. for Ognaj is of neighbouring village. A Copy of the judgment of Reference Court and of this Court in that case, are produced in the evidence by this witness. He says that the distance between the village Ognaj and acquired land is of 2 kms. only. He also says that the land acquired for G.H.B. i.e. Ognaj village's land is in interior part. He says that their land is superior to the land acquired of the Ognaj village. This witness is cross-examined by the other-side. The witness denies the suggestion that the land acquired by the G.H.B. is at the distance of 8 kms. from the land acquired herein. He agrees with the suggestion that the land of Ognaj village was acquired for the purpose of G.H.B. Besides this, it appears that no effective cross, has been made before Reference Court qua claimants' claim based on compensation granted in case of Ognaj village. The claimants have produced copy of judgment of Reference Court in Ognaj case and also copy of order of High Court passed in appeal against the judgment of Reference Court (Exh.32 & Exh.33). Therefore, the State ought to have taken it seriously and ought to have cross-examined the witness effectively. Further, the State ought to have taken care to brought other relevant evidence on record, when claimants had specifically brought to the notice of the State that the claimants' claim the compensation on the basis of compensation awarded in G.H.B. Case. 15. In the present case, the notification u/s. 4 was issued on 23/01/1992 and in G.H.B. Case, the notification was issued on 16/12/1993. Mr. Soni, learned advocate for the appellants has fairly conceded that since the notification issued in the present case is one year earlier then the notification issued in G.H.B. Case and therefore, 10% amount may be deducted from the compensation awarded in that case. 16. Mr. Soni, learned advocate for the appellants has fairly conceded that since the notification issued in the present case is one year earlier then the notification issued in G.H.B. Case and therefore, 10% amount may be deducted from the compensation awarded in that case. 16. Learned Trial Court has not given any reason for not considering the case of the claimants for granting compensation as awarded in G.H.B. Case. In fact, in conclusion recorded by the learned Reference Court, no reference to this aspect is made. Learned Reference Court has referred the revenue record etc. as if market value of the acquired land is to be considered on the basis of yield base method. As if the claimants have advanced their claim solely on the basis of yield basis method. Further, after referring revenue records to consider the yield from the acquired land, it has proceeded adopt the market price stated in Nayab Nagar Niyojak's report. Hence, interference in order of Reference Court is necessary. 17. In view of the above and in absence of any challenge by the other side, - not to speak of successful challenge-to the claimants' claim based on compensation granted in G.H.B. case of Ognaj village, the claim of the claimant may be accepted. 18. It was pointed out to Mr. Soni, learned advocate for the appellants that in Ognaj village's case, the Land Acquisition Officer has awarded Rs. 67/- per sq.mtr. to the claimants, as against that in the present case, the Land Acquisition Officer has awarded just Rs. 15/- per sq.mtr. only, therefore, quality of land and in other respect also, Ognaj village land may be superior to the present land. Learned advocate submitted that assessing quality of land on the basis of amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer would be misleading. Apart from the fact that the amount fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer is not even act in any quasi-judicial proceedings as it is not determination of any dispute or "lis", it should also bear in mind that it is only an offer and that being so market price so fixed would be highly subjective. Further, the land acquisition authority has not taken into consideration all the relevant aspects. Then, referring to the opinion expressed by the learned Reference Court on quality of land, it was pointed out from the deposition of Ashaji that claimants' land are highly fertile land. Further, the land acquisition authority has not taken into consideration all the relevant aspects. Then, referring to the opinion expressed by the learned Reference Court on quality of land, it was pointed out from the deposition of Ashaji that claimants' land are highly fertile land. That claimants are taking 2-3 crops per year such as wheat, juvar, millet, rice etc. That they have irrigation facilities. They sold yield in the Ahmedabad market. It was submitted that village form No. 7/12, on which heavy reliance placed by the learned Reference Court, does not always reflect true and complete picture of quality of that land. Mr. Soni, learned advocate has further submitted that in view of Ognaj village judgment in their favour, the claimants had not developed their case of compensation on any other line-including on yield basis method-and therefore, they have not placed any other material on record to establish the true quality of land and its market value. The market value in Ognaj village case was fixed at Rs. 303/- per sq.mtr. at the time of acquisition. It was submitted that as per their information, no appeal is preferred before the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the judgment of this Court in that case. If the claimants of G.H.B. case i.e. Ognaj village are entitled to get compensation at the rate of Rs. 303/- per sq.mtr., than the claimant of Chharodi vilalge i.e. present case can certainly seek compensation at higher rate or at least at par with that case. Ognaj village is just 2 kms away from Chharodi village. In fact, Ognaj village is in interior part compared to village Chharodi. Rough sketch showing boundaries surrounding four side shows that Chharodi village is situated in the center while Ognaj is on northen side, Jagatpur is on southern side, Gota is on western side. The boundaries of all these villages touch the boundaries of village Chharodi. If the growth and development of G.H.B. i.e. Ognaj village in the year 1993 is of such degree and level that it justifies the market value at the rate of Rs. 303/- per sq.mtr. then the land of Chharodi village i.e. the present case cannot be believed to be so undeveloped and backward, that one can legitimately say that claimant should rest satisfied with market value at Rs. 23/- per sq. mtr. 303/- per sq.mtr. then the land of Chharodi village i.e. the present case cannot be believed to be so undeveloped and backward, that one can legitimately say that claimant should rest satisfied with market value at Rs. 23/- per sq. mtr. In the circumstances of the case, it is not possible to accept disparity of such huge magnitude as reality. In fact, as submitted at the time of hearing, village Chharodi is better placed situation-wise and locationwise compared to village Ognaj. There is no effective answer to this by the other side. The State has not shown how the case of village Ognaj is distinguishable to the present case and why the market rate awarded in that case cannot be awarded in the present case. 19. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the present case and upon hearing the submissions of learned advocate Mr. Soni, in my opinion, if 20% is deducted from the market rate fixed in G.H.B. case then it would reflect true and proper market value of the land in the present case. In G.H.B. Case, Rs. 303/- per sq. mtr. is awarded to the claimants. Mr. Soni, learned advocate for the appellants suggested that Rs. 250/- per sq.mtr. may be taken as a base and if 20% is added in it-that would comes to Rs. 300/-. This submission is accepted. The market rate in the present case in view of above discussion considered at Rs. 250/- per sq.mtr. It was submitted that the land is acquired for national highway purpose and subsequent to the acquisition, the area is far developed then the village Ognaj, therefore, market price should be fixed at Rs. 275/- per sq.mtr. - this submission is not possible to accept. It is not that the land touching to preexisting national highway is acquired by the acquiring body, but the national highway is so designed that the claimants land were acquired for the said purpose. So the claim for higher compensation based on plea that national highway passes through the acquired land cannot be accepted. Nor subsequent fast development of the acquired land can be considered as a relevant. 20. In view of the above, present appeals are partly allowed. The claimants are entitled to get compensation at the rate of Rs. 250/- per sq.mtr. with all permissible statutory benefits i.e. solatium, interest on enhanced rate etc. Nor subsequent fast development of the acquired land can be considered as a relevant. 20. In view of the above, present appeals are partly allowed. The claimants are entitled to get compensation at the rate of Rs. 250/- per sq.mtr. with all permissible statutory benefits i.e. solatium, interest on enhanced rate etc. It is also directed that the State shall deposit the compensation amount before the learned Trial Court with a reasonable period, but not later than three months i.e. 30th September, 2013. Rule is made absolute to that extent. Appeals partly allowed.