JUDGMENT R.R. Tripathi, J. 1. Special Civil Application No. 5406 of 2001 is filed by the State of Gujarat through Officer on Special Duty, Private Forest Acquisition Act of 1972 being aggrieved by judgment and order passed by the Hon'ble Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in Appeal No. 53 of 1998 dated 303-2001. 1.1. So far as Special Civil Application No. 6413 of 2001 is concerned, the same is filed by Shri Gopalsinh Padamsinh Vaghela, erstwhile 'Jagirdar' of 'Posina' of Khedbrahma Taluka of Sabarkantha District, whose 'Jagirdari' comprised of 60 villages. The 'Jagirdari' was abolished on coming in force of the Bombay Merged Territories and Areas (Jagir Abolition) Act, 1954. The main bone of contention in both these petitions is related to the compensation for the trees in the land of these 60 villages, possession of which, as claimed by the petitioner of Spl. C.A. No. 6413 of 2001, was taken over by the Government in the year 1965, whereas the rival contention of the Government is that the possession was taken only in the year 1973-1974 after the Gujarat Private Forest (Acquisition) Act, 1972 ("the Act" for short) coming in force (the Act was accented to by the President on 30th June, 1973). 2. Learned A.G.P. Mr. Rindani submitted that the Government is aggrieved by judgment and order of the Hon'ble Gujarat Revenue Tribunal to the extent that the Tribunal held that, "as per sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 8 of the Act, Secs. 26, 18 and 23 of the Land Acquisition Act are applicable to the subject-matter and that is why the Hon'ble Tribunal is pleased to award interest at the rate of 9% per annum and is also pleased to award solatium at the rate of 30%". 2.1. Learned A.G.P. submitted that while he is pointing out the main bone of contention/the main point which is not acceptable to the Government, it may not be construed to mean that on all other points, findings/award of the Hon'ble Tribunal are acceptable to the Government. 3. Learned Advocate Mr. H.M. Parikh for the petitioner in Spl. C.A. No. 6413 of 2013 submitted that the judgment and award of the Hon'ble Tribunal is vitiated on a very fundamental issue and that fundamental issue is that the Hon'ble Tribunal has proceeded with the matter on the basis that, "the award passed by the Special Officer on Duty, whereby an amount of Rs. 13,49,053-40 ps. C.A. No. 6413 of 2013 submitted that the judgment and award of the Hon'ble Tribunal is vitiated on a very fundamental issue and that fundamental issue is that the Hon'ble Tribunal has proceeded with the matter on the basis that, "the award passed by the Special Officer on Duty, whereby an amount of Rs. 13,49,053-40 ps. is stated to have been admitted by both the parties". In this regard, learned Advocate for the petitioner in Spl. C.A. No. 6413 of 2001 invited attention of the Court to Para. 8 of the judgment and order of the Hon'ble Tribunal, wherein the Hon'ble Tribunal has stated that, "Taking into consideration the oral submissions as well as written replies and taking into consideration the relevant documents and evidence and official record, it is clear that Posina Jagirdari was abolished under Jagirdari Abolition Act and for forest of those 50 villages of Jagirdari and trees standing on that land, an application for compensation was filed under the Gujarat Private Forest (Acquisition) Act, 1972 on 18-12-1974 and that dispute was fought between the parties upto the Hon'ble High Court. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in its judgment and order dated 31-7-1998, taking into consideration the affidavit-in-reply filed by the Government, which was produced before the High Court on 14-7-1997, according to which an amount of Rs. 13,49,053-40 ps., the applicant is entitled to receive as compensation. This fact is admitted by both the parties.....". (Emphasis supplied) 3.1. Learned Advocate for the petitioner in Spl. C.A. No. 6413 of 2001 invited attention of the Court to the judgment and order passed by this Court in Spl. C.A. No. 5360 of 1998 with Spl. C.A. No. 1197 of 1998 dated 31-7-1998. Learned Advocate for the petitioner in Spl. C.A. No. 6413 of 2001 invited attention of the Court to the contents of Para. 14 of the judgment, wherein this Court was pleased to observe as under: "14. The Tribunal will examine the petitioner's challenge qua the amount of compensation as well as qua the non-grant of interest by the Officer on Special Duty to the petitioner for any period, without being influenced by any observation in this judgment." 3.2. Learned Advocate for the petitioner in Spl. The Tribunal will examine the petitioner's challenge qua the amount of compensation as well as qua the non-grant of interest by the Officer on Special Duty to the petitioner for any period, without being influenced by any observation in this judgment." 3.2. Learned Advocate for the petitioner in Spl. C.A. No. 6413 of 2001 submitted that in view of the aforesaid observation made by this Court, the Hon'ble Tribunal ought not to have recorded that the amount mentioned is 'admitted' by the petitioner. 4. On plain reading of judgment and order dated 31-7-1998 in Spl. C.A. No. 5360 of 1998 with Spl. C.A. No. 1197 of 7995, the submissions made by the learned Advocate for the petitioner in Spl. C.A. No. 6413 of 2001 are found acceptable. 5. Coming to the contentions raised by learned A.G.P., the Hon'ble Tribunal has recorded in Para. 9 of the impugned judgment and order as under: "9. As provided in sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 8 of the Gujarat Private Forest (Acquisition) Act, 1972 for declaring an award Secs. 26, 18 and 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 are to be taken into consideration." 5.1. Learned A.G.P. invited attention of the Court to sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 8 of the Act, which reads as under: "(3) Every award under sub-sec. (1) shall, so far as may be, be in the form prescribed in Sec. 26 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (I of 1894)." 5.2. Learned A.G.P. submitted that the Hon'ble Tribunal has construed sub-sec. (3) to mean that the entire provisions of Secs. 26, 18 and 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 are applicable to every matter arising under the Gujarat Private Forest (Acquisition) Act, 1972. Learned A.G.P. submitted that on plain reading of the provisions of the Act like Sec. 9, it will be clear that the Hon'ble Tribunal has committed an error and has got misguided itself in holding that the provisions of Secs. 26, 18 and 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 are applicable to the proceedings arising under this Act. Learned A.G.P. invited attention of the Court to Sec. 9 of the Act, which provides for, "Manner in which the amount is to be paid". 26, 18 and 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 are applicable to the proceedings arising under this Act. Learned A.G.P. invited attention of the Court to Sec. 9 of the Act, which provides for, "Manner in which the amount is to be paid". Sub-section (2) of Sec. 9 provides as under: "(2) Where the amount awarded is not paid at the time of or before taking possession of the private forest, the amount awarded shall be payable with interest thereon at the rate of four and half per cent per annum from the time of taking possession till the amount if paid." (Emphasis supplied) 5.3. Learned A.G.P. submitted that if interpretation put by the Hon'ble Tribunal is accepted then sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 9 of the Act is rendered redundant, and therefore, it is clear that the interpretation put by the Hon'ble Tribunal on sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 8 is erroneous and cannot be allowed to stand by this Court so as to see that injustice is not perpetuated. 5.4. Learned A.G.P. submitted that when it is provided under sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 8 of the Act that, "Every award under sub-sec. (1) shall, so far as may be, be in the form prescribed in Sec. 26 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894", it means that format which is not prescribed in this Act is to be borrowed from the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, otherwise there is no reason for the Legislature to provide sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 9 independent of Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Legislature could have provided that rate of interest will be as provided in Land Acquisition Act, 1894. (Emphasis supplied) 6. The aforesaid submission is also found to be acceptable by this Court. This Court has no hesitation in holding that the Hon'ble Tribunal has misguided itself and has erred in interpreting sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 8 of the Act to the effect that provisions of Secs. 26, 18 and 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 are applicable to the matters arising under the Gujarat Private Forest (Acquisition) Act, 1972. 6.1. Besides that, the Court finds that the Hon'ble Tribunal has not correctly followed the direction given by this Court in judgment and order dated 31-7-1998 in Spl. C.A. No. 5360 of 1998 with Spl. 26, 18 and 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 are applicable to the matters arising under the Gujarat Private Forest (Acquisition) Act, 1972. 6.1. Besides that, the Court finds that the Hon'ble Tribunal has not correctly followed the direction given by this Court in judgment and order dated 31-7-1998 in Spl. C.A. No. 5360 of 1998 with Spl. C.A. No. 1197 of 1998, whereby the Court was pleased to direct the Hon'ble Tribunal to, 'examine the petitioner's challenge qua the amount of compensation as well as qua the non-grant of interest by the Officer on Special Duty to the petitioner for any period'. The Court was very clear and that is why provided that the aforesaid two aspects should be decided by the Tribunal without being influenced by any observations in the judgment. (Emphasis supplied). 7. For all these reasons, the impugned judgment and order dated 30-3-2001 passed by the Hon'ble Revenue Tribunal in Revision Application No. 53 of 1998 cannot be allowed to stand. The same is quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Hon'ble Tribunal to decide the same in accordance with law and as directed by this Court in judgment and order dated 31-7-1998 in Spl. C.A. No. 5360 of 1998 with Spl. C.A. No. 1197 of 1998. 8. At this juncture, learned Advocate Mr. Parikh for the petitioner in Spl. C.A. No. 6413 of 2001 requested that taking into consideration the age of the matter, it is required that the Hon'ble Tribunal be requested to decide the matter as early as possible and preferably in a time-frame. 9. The request is found reasonable. The Hon'ble Tribunal is requested to decide the matter as expeditiously as possible, but not later than 31-12-2013. This request is made on an assurance given by learned Advocates for both the parties that they will extend full co-operation to the Hon'ble Tribunal in deciding the matter in the aforesaid time frame. Both these petitions are allowed to the aforesaid extent. Rule is made absolute. No order as to costs. Direct Service is permitted.