JUDGMENT R.M. CHHAYA, J. 1. This appeal is directed against common judgment and award dated 10.9.1991 rendered by City Civil Court, Court No. 11, Ahmedabad u/s. 54 of the Land Acquisition Act read with Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure in Compensation Case No. 38 of 1988 and other allied compensation cases. It may be noted that the present appeal is as such directed against the Compensation Case No. 38 of 1988. 2. Heard Ms. Archana Amin for Mr. G.M. Amin, learned Counsel for the appellants, Mr. Alkesh Shah, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent no. 1 and Mr P.G. Desai, learned Senior Counsel with Mr. Krunal Amin for respondent no. 2. 3. The facts arising in this appeal are as under: 4. That the lands belonging to the appellants original claimants were sought to be acquired by the State for Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation. The lands belonging to the original claimants are situated in town planning scheme no. 24 area, being final plot no. 2/1 to 2/4 situated at village Rajpur Hirpur, Taluka City Ahmedabad. On perusal of the record it appears that the proposal to acquire the land was made by Deputy Commissioner, Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation on 23.5.1972. Considering the proposal so made, the lands belonging to the appellants original claimants were sought to be acquired by issuance of Section 4 notification in the month of September, 1973. After scrupulously following the procedure as prescribed under the Act the proceedings culminated into an award dated 23.9.1986. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed the market price of final plot no. 2/1 at Rs. 40/- per sq. mtr., Rs. 50/- per sq. mtr. for final plot no. 2/2, Rs. 45/- per sq. mtr. for final plot no. 2/3 and Rs. 50/- per sq. mtr. for final plot no. 2/4. 5. Being aggrieved by the said award the appellants-claimants raised dispute which came to be referred u/s. 18 to the Reference Court i.e. City Civil Court, Court No. 11, Ahmedabad and claimed Rs. 90/- to Rs. 100/- per sq. mtr. The Reference Court by impugned common judgment and award dated 10.9.1991 was pleased to partly allow the Reference and awarded Rs. 25/- per sq. mtr. together with solatium and other statutory benefits. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and award the claimants have preferred the present appeal as aforesaid. 6. Ms. 90/- to Rs. 100/- per sq. mtr. The Reference Court by impugned common judgment and award dated 10.9.1991 was pleased to partly allow the Reference and awarded Rs. 25/- per sq. mtr. together with solatium and other statutory benefits. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and award the claimants have preferred the present appeal as aforesaid. 6. Ms. Amin, learned Counsel for the appellants has at the outset submitted that the impugned judgment and award is the common judgment and award which was the subject matter of First Appeal No. 2196 of 1993 to First Appeal No. 2201 of 1993. Mr. Amin further submitted that the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court (Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.H. Kadri and Hon'ble Mr. Justice C.K. Buch (as Their Lordships then were) by judgment and order dated 10.5.2000 after appreciating the evidence on record were pleased to allow the said appeal filed by other claimants under the same acquisition and have determined the market price of the land under acquisition at Rs.85/-per sq. mtr. Ms. Amin therefore submitted that the land under acquisition in this appeal and the lands which were acquired were similar and identical and therefore the appeal be allowed in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench and this Court may also fix the market value of the land under acquisition at Rs. 85/- per sq. mtr. 7. Mr. P.G. Desai, learned Senior Advocate with Mr. Krunal Amin and Mr. Alkesh Shah, learned Assistant Government Pleader though have supported the impugned judgment and award have not been able to point out that any different view is required to be taken in this appeal. 8. The Hon'ble Division Bench in the case of Heirs of Haji Mohmadhusein vs. Additional Land Acquisition Officer (Special) in First Appeal No. 2196 of 1993 and allied appeals have in paragraph nos. 7 to 12 observed thus: “7. We have considered oral submissions advanced by learned counsel appearing for the parties in light of evidence available on record. On perusal of the record of Reference Court, we found that Acquiring Body had not resisted the reference applications by filing written objections. Averments made in the applications have remained unchallenged. Vide list of documents at exh.14, opponents have tried to produce documentary evidence consisting of a map of the lands under acquisition. On perusal of the record of Reference Court, we found that Acquiring Body had not resisted the reference applications by filing written objections. Averments made in the applications have remained unchallenged. Vide list of documents at exh.14, opponents have tried to produce documentary evidence consisting of a map of the lands under acquisition. On careful perusal of the map produced by the Acquiring Body, it clearly transpires that lands under acquisition are neighbouring lands to Final Plot No. 2/5 where Uganda Park Society is developed and on one piece of land, there is one Sardar Patel High School. Marine Drive Society is also situated in the adjoining area and the lands are abutting on the main road of T.P. Scheme No. 24. In short,the claimants have successfully established, by oral as well as documentary evidence, that the lands under acquisition, even on the date of publication of notification under Section4 of the Act, were having much potentiality irrespective of the fact that same were not formally converted into N.A. lands. Oral evidence of claimant Mahommad Yunus Mahommad Rasul Shaikh, exh.12, gives clear picture of the situation of the lands. This witness has denied that hutments in the neighbouring area has effect on the potentiality of the lands in question. He has also denied that area is sensitive so far as communal tranquility is concerned. He has positively stated that on the date of publication of notification under Section 4 of the Act, market value of the lands of the relevant area was Rs. 90/ to 100/ per sq. mt. Documents exh.60 to 65 are proved by witness Anantray Bhulabhai vide exh. 49. Witness Anantray has accepted the suggestion put forward by the advocate appearing for the opponent that Shahe Alam area was one of the sensitive areas and during communal riots of 1969. Area where acquired lands are situated was affected worstly. Witness Rajnikant Bhogilal has supported the evidence of witness Anantray Bhulabhai. Father of witness had purchased certain pieces of lands from Ramaben Kanubhai and Urmilaben Anantray. Before execution of sale-deeds, agreement to sale were executed and registered sale-deeds were executed on 25.7.1973 and 27.7.1973. In that transactions, market value of the land was shown and determined at Rs. 95/ per sq. yds. He is one of the witness in the document and transaction had taken place in his presence. Before execution of sale-deeds, agreement to sale were executed and registered sale-deeds were executed on 25.7.1973 and 27.7.1973. In that transactions, market value of the land was shown and determined at Rs. 95/ per sq. yds. He is one of the witness in the document and transaction had taken place in his presence. During cross-examination, it was deposed by the witness as under:- Above sentence is relevant while appreciating the oral version of witness Anantray Bhulabhai exh.49, wherein he has stated that consideration of the land was determined at Rs. 70/ per sq. yd. Similar situation emerges from the oral evidence of witness Girish Dasharathbhai exh.67. Sale-deeds referred and proved by this witness examined by the claimants side, are undisputedly related to the lands situated in the area of near vicinity of the lands under acquisition. Date of notification under Section4 of the Act in the case on hand is September, 1973. Mr. Amin, learned counsel for the appellants, therefore, has rightly argued that sale-deeds exh.60 to 65 should have been considered by the Reference Court as contemporaneous sale or sale transaction of similar type of land in the same area. Transaction of comparatively small plots cannot be ignored totally. Contemporaneous Sale can provide acceptable base line for market value of a piece of land. We agree that contemporaneous sale can be ignored by the Reference Court, but for ignoring the same, Reference Court must assign cogent and convincing reasons. Sale-deeds produced and proved by the witness are not sale of stray pieces here and there at some different place or at some long distance. As the lands acquired were to be converted into NA lands and as on some lands adjoining to the lands under acquisition, unauthorised hutments were erected by the allegedly unauthorised persons, reasonable reduction can be made while determining the market value. Mechanical application of 1/3rd reduction in the case of acquisition of large parcels of lands or acquisition of agricultural lands qua N.A. lands, may cause injustice to the land holders when undisputedly the lands under acquisition are part of TP Scheme No. 24 of a developed city and notified in the residential zone. This is a case wherein claimants could have prayed compensation even at the more rate than Rs. 110/ per sq. mt. Documents relied upon by the claimants are of Rs. 95/ per sq. yd. Mathematically, if market rate is Rs. This is a case wherein claimants could have prayed compensation even at the more rate than Rs. 110/ per sq. mt. Documents relied upon by the claimants are of Rs. 95/ per sq. yd. Mathematically, if market rate is Rs. 95/ per sq. yd., it would be higher in terms of sq.mt. The purpose of acquisition is also relevant in such cases. Acquiring Body has acquired these lands to construct residential houses for the staff members. A local-self government like Municipal Corporation of City of Ahmedabad would not acquire lands for its staff members in the area which can be termed as too remote and all these aspects, if looked into, the grievance of the claimants that the market value determined by the Reference Court is inadequate, shall have to be accepted. In certain cases, mathematical exercise would not give exact market value of the land. In catena of decisions, the courts have awarded just compensation even by applying rule of thumb considering totality of facts and circumstances of the case, situation of land and in light of evidence available on record. 9. Document exh.60 dated 26.7.1973 refers to an agreement of sale dated 26.6.1972 in respect of very plot admeasuring 400 sq. yds. at the rate of Rs. 70/ per sq. yd. Land of this document is part of TP Scheme No. 24 of Maninagar situated in Final Plot No. 63. Document exh.61 is also situated in that very area and this document also refers to one agreement of sale dated 31.7.1972. Same is the case of document exh.62. Document exh.63 relates to lands admeasuring 405.50 sq. yds. situated in sub- plot no. 6 of Final Plot No. 74 of TP Scheme No. 24 of Maninagar. Document exh.64 is an important document relates to a land situated in a very near vicinity of the lands under acquisition and is executed in favour of Marine Drive Co. Op. Housing Society. This document was executed on 6th May,1969. The person who executed sale-deed had sold undivided 1/3rd interest over the lands admeasuring 404 sq. yds. out of 1212 sq. yds. of lands situated in TP Scheme No. 24 of Maninagar. Op. Housing Society. This document was executed on 6th May,1969. The person who executed sale-deed had sold undivided 1/3rd interest over the lands admeasuring 404 sq. yds. out of 1212 sq. yds. of lands situated in TP Scheme No. 24 of Maninagar. Bare reading of this document gives an impression that this document cannot be considered, but on close scrutiny, it transpires that though these lands are of TP Scheme No. 24 of Maninagar, originally lands were of villages Rajpur-Hirpur where present acquired lands are situated. Covenant of document exh.64 clarifies the situation of the lands sold vide document exh.64. This sale may not be a contemporaneous sale, but it provides base-line to determine market value of the lands under acquisition. Documents produced and proved by the claimants are genuine sale transactions. Documents are proved by competent witnesses. It is not the say or submission of respondents that these sale transactions are doubtful or bogus. No such specific plea was raised by the respondents before the Reference Court. We do not agree that merely because there is one crematorium of Vaghari community in nearby area, lands under acquisition would loose their potentiality. It is the experience of well- developed cities that crematoriums are in the heart of city or in thickly populated areas. We cannot agree that the finding recorded by the Reference Court that unprecedented riots in the city of Ahmedabad in the year 1969 can adversely affect the market value or potentiality of the lands in the year 1972 or 1973. We also do not agree that admission on the part of one of the witnesses examined by land owner that the area was considered as notorious area or was full of bootleggers, can dislodge legitimate claim of the appellants on the ground of potentiality. This type of stray incidents or activities normally are of very temporary nature. Ratio laid down by this Court in the case of Manguben, w/o Natwarlal Hiralal Patel & Others vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Ahmedabad, 1992 (2) G.L.R. 944 to the facts of the present case. In the case of Manguben (supra), this Court has considered building potentiality and not the embargo of existing green belt in the T.P. Scheme. Ratio laid down by this Court in the case of Manguben, w/o Natwarlal Hiralal Patel & Others vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Ahmedabad, 1992 (2) G.L.R. 944 to the facts of the present case. In the case of Manguben (supra), this Court has considered building potentiality and not the embargo of existing green belt in the T.P. Scheme. We would like to quote observation of the Apex Court made in the decision rendered in the case of Administrator General of West Bengal vs. Collector, Varanasi, AIR 1988 SC 943 , wherein the Apex Court has observed as under:- “The determination of market value of a piece of land with potentialities for urban use is an intricate exercise which calls for collection and collation of diverse economic criteria. The market- value of a piece of property, for purposes of S.23 of the Act, is stated to be the price at which the property changes hands from a willing seller to a willing, but not too anxious a buyer, dealing at arms length. The determination of market value, as one author put it, is the prediction of an economic event, viz., the price-outcome of a hypothetical sale, expressed in terms of probabilities. Prices fetched for similar lands with similar advantages and potentialities under bona fide transactions of sale at our about the time of the preliminary notification are the usual, and indeed the best, evidences of market value. Other methods of valuation are resorted to if the evidence of sale of similar lands is not available.” 10. We agree that sale instances proved by the appellants are not of immediate adjacent lands, but they give rising trend of market value of lands situated in the sim of village Rajpur-Hirpur which were subsequently divided into final plots of various town planning schemes. 11. According to us, error in appreciating oral as well as documentary evidence especially the documents providing sale instances of the lands situated in the vicinity or the same area, can be termed as an error apparent so far as Reference Court is concerned and the same would not be justified. However, in view of discussions as above, in our opinion, in this case, treating entire lands as similarly situated and equal type of land, market value of the land should be determined by giving reasonable deduction of Rs. 5- 00 per sq. mt. However, in view of discussions as above, in our opinion, in this case, treating entire lands as similarly situated and equal type of land, market value of the land should be determined by giving reasonable deduction of Rs. 5- 00 per sq. mt. and should be determined at the rate of Rs. 85.00 per sq. mt. Accordingly, we determine market value of the lands under acquisition at the rate of Rs. 85.00 per sq. mt. So, we are inclined to interfere with the findings of the Reference Court by enhancing market value and modifying the award in the above terms. 12. In the result, appeals are partly allowed with costs. Judgment and award passed by learned Judge, City Civil Court, Court No. 11, Ahmedabad on 10th September, 1991 in Land Ref. Case Nos. 23/88, 24/88, 32/88, 33/88, 34/88, 36/88 and 38/88 is ordered to be modified to the extent that market value of the lands under acquisition are determined at the rate of Rs. 85.00 per sq. mt. Appellants claimants shall be entitled to all other statutory benefits on the awarded amount under Section 23(1-A), 23(2) and interest under Section 28 of the Act. However, it is made clear that appellants claimants shall not be entitled to solatiuim on the amount under Section 23(1-A) and no amount of interest shall be paid on the amount of solatium as per the settled legal position. Decree to be drawn accordingly.” 9. Considering the aforesaid judgment and considering the fact that the Lands of appellant- original claimants have been under the same notification and the same set of evidence is adduced before the Reference Court the appeal is required to be partly allowed and the market value as fixed by Division Bench fixed at Rs. 85/- per sq. mtr. deserves to be fixed in this appeal also. 10. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and award dated 10.9.1991 passed by the City Civil Court, Court No. 11, Ahmedabad in Reference Case No. 38 of 1988 stands modified and the market value of the lands under acquisition is fixed at Rs. 85/- per sq. mtr. The appellants claimants shall be entitled to solatium on the amount u/s. 23(1-A), 23(2) and interest u/s. 28 of the Act including other statutory benefits as per the provisions of the Act. Parties to bear their own costs. Decree stands modified accordingly.