ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the Act) read with Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (the CPC) challenging the judgment and order dated 26.10.2007 rendered by 2nd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nadiad in Land Reference Case No.80 of 2002. 2. Heard Mr. B.D.Karia, learned advocate for the appellant, Mr.Alkesh N. Shah, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the Respondent-Special Land Acquisition Officer, and Mr. Ajay R. Mehta, learned advocate for the respondent-acquiring body. Perused the impugned judgment and order as well as judgments at Exh.17 and 18, which are tendered by the learned counsel for the parties. 3. The facts reveal that lands belonging to the appellant situated at Village Mahij, Dist. Kheda, were sought to be acquired for the public purpose of WNDR on the permanent basis for respondent No.2. Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the Act) was issued on 19.09.1997, followed by a declaration made under Section 6 of the Act on 13.10.1998. The proceedings so initiated culminated into an award made and declared by the Special Land Acquisition Officer on 31.03.2000 awarding compensation of Rs.15/sq. mtr. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant preferred aforesaid land reference under Section 18 of the Act and raised demand of Rs.400/sq. mtr. wherein the Reference Court, after appreciating evidence on record, by the impugned judgment and order dated 26.10.2007 determined the market value of the lands under acquisition at Rs.109/sq. mtr. Hence, the appellant-original claimant has preferred present appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Reference Court has awarded Rs.109/sq. mtr. mainly on the basis of previous award (Exh.17), which was passed in Land Reference Case No.375 of 1994 and others wherein notification under Section 4 of the Act was published on 22.04.1990. It is further submitted that the said judgment and award is confirmed by Division Bench of this Court in First Appeal No.1431 of 1999 vide judgment and order dated 05.10.1999 (Exh.18). It is submitted that though the lands, which were acquired under Land Reference Case No.375 of 1994 and others, are situated in the same village, the geographical location of the lands under acquisition are different and, therefore, the Reference Court ought to have awarded compensation as prayed for by the appellant. It is therefore submitted that the appeal deserves to be allowed. 5. It is therefore submitted that the appeal deserves to be allowed. 5. Per contra, Mr.Mehta, learned advocate for the respondent-acquiring body, has submitted that the Reference Court has rightly relied upon the previous award (Exh.17) and after giving 10% rise for seven years i.e. 1990-97, as the notification under consideration was issued on 19.09.1997, has rightly determined the market value of the lands under acquisition at Rs.109/sq. mtr. Further relying upon the judgment and order dated 05.10.1999 passed by Division Bench of this Court in First Appeal No.1431 of 1999 (Exh.18) as well as judgment rendered by this Court dated 16.08.2011 in First Appeal Nos.1670-1672/09, it is submitted that the appeal is meritless and the same deserves to be dismissed. It is further submitted that in the aforesaid First Appeal Nos.1670-1672/09, relying upon the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Patel Shambhubhai Bhaichanddas Vs. State of Gujarat and Ors., 2007 (2) G.L.H. 272 this Court has dismissed the appeals filed by the claimants in relation to similar acquisition whereby the land situated at Village Goblaj, which is nearby village came to be acquired by respondent No.2. It is therefore submitted that no interference is called for by this Court in its appellate jurisdiction and the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent-Special Land Acquisition Officer has adopted the arguments made by learned counsel for respondent No.2. No other or further submissions are made by learned counsel for the parties. 7. Upon consideration of the impugned judgment and order as well as previous award Exh.17 as well as the judgment and order dated 05.10.1999 passed by Division Bench of this Court in First Appeal No.1431 of 1999 (Exh.18) and also the aforesaid judgment rendered by this Court in First Appeal Nos.1670-1672/09, it appears that the Reference Court has rightly relied upon the previous award (Exh.17) as the said evidence was the best piece of evidence available on record. 8. The Reference Court while determining the market value of the land under acquisition at Rs.109/sq. mtr. 8. The Reference Court while determining the market value of the land under acquisition at Rs.109/sq. mtr. has considered the ratio laid down by this Court in the case reported in 1998 (1) G.L.R. 130 and has rightly given rise of 10% for seven years and has taken the basis of the previous award (Exh.17) as the basic price and has rightly determined the market value of the lands under acquisition at Rs.109/sq. Mtr. The appellant has not led any other evidence, which would entitle him to any further compensation than what is awarded by the impugned judgment and order. 9. Consequently, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs.