Judgment 1. As the questions involved in these appeals are identical and similar and as same set of evidence is adduced and relied upon by the Reference Court, all these appeals are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment and order. 2. These appeals under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) read with Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 are directed against the judgment and award dated 29.4.2009 rendered in Land Acquisition Reference Nos.369 and 371 of 1998 by 2nd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nadiad. 3. The facts arising in these appeals are that the lands belonging to respondent No.1 situated at Village Kathwada, Taluka Matar, District Kheda were acquired by the Land Acquisition Officer under Section 35(1) of the Act for temporary acquisition for the public purpose of drilling by ONGC i.e. the present appellant. The Land Acquisition Officer made an award on 19.11.1990 and fixed the rental compensation at Rs.1.20 per sq. mtr. per annum. Being dissatisfied with the same, the opponent – claimant raised a dispute as provided under Section 35(3) of the Act which came to be referred to the Reference Court, as aforesaid. The original claimant claimed Rs.5/per sq. mtr. per annum as rental compensation which was thereafter enhanced by an order passed below Exh.8 to Rs.25/per sq. mtr. per annum. The Reference Court, by the impugned judgment and award, has passed the following order: “1) All the references are partly allowed except the Land Reference No.372 of 1998 filed by Laxmanbhai Detarbhai. 2) The claimants of Land Acquisition Reference no.368, 369, 370, 371, 373 and 374 all of 1998 are held entitled to the additional compensation for the period from date 1.9.1988 i.e. the date of taking over the possession of the land of the respective claimants, to the date 31.8.1990, at the rate of Rs.3.80 Police Station. per square meter per year, together with the interest at the rate of 9% p.a. on the additional amount from the date of taking possession till realisation, with costs.” 4. Heard Mr. A.R. Mehta, learned advocate for the appellant and Mr. Alkesh N. Shah, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the Special Land Acquisition Officer in all the appeals. Though served, no one appears for respondent No.1 – original claimant in both the appeals. 5. Mr. Mehta as well as Mr. Heard Mr. A.R. Mehta, learned advocate for the appellant and Mr. Alkesh N. Shah, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the Special Land Acquisition Officer in all the appeals. Though served, no one appears for respondent No.1 – original claimant in both the appeals. 5. Mr. Mehta as well as Mr. Shah have submitted that the impugned judgment and awards are erroneous both on law and facts and the same deserve to be quashed and set aside by allowing the appeals as prayed for. Mr. Mehta contended that there was no cogent evidence led by the opponent – original claimant before the Reference Court and on wrong appreciation of the evidence which was led, the Reference Court has fixed the rental compensation for 3 years at the rate of Rs.3.80 per sq. mtr. per annum and has also awarded interest at the rate of 9% per annum. Mr. Mehta contended that the same is beyond the scope and ambit of Section 35 of the Act and the impugned award is without jurisdiction. It is further contended that the Reference Court has overlooked the aspect of limitation as can be seen from the facts that the Land Acquisition Officer passed an award on 19.11.1990, whereas the references were registered in the year 1998. It is therefore contended that the appeals be allowed as prayed for. 6. Mr. A.N. Shah, learned Assistant Government Pleader has adopted the arguments made by Mr. A.R. Mehta, learned advocate for the appellant. Mr. Mehta has also produced the relevant records for perusal of the Court. 7. Considering the submissions made and considering the impugned judgment and award as well as the relevant papers supplied by the learned advocate for the appellant, it appears that the Land Acquisition Officer has awarded nearly an amount of Rs.1.20 per sq. mtr. As rental compensation. The original claimant is examined at Exh.22 and the original claimants have also relied upon the previous judgment passed in Land Acquisition Reference Case No.37 of 1999 and allied matters being Exh.21. It further appears that the appellant has examined the witness at Exh.27. However, no other evidence is led before the Reference Court. mtr. As rental compensation. The original claimant is examined at Exh.22 and the original claimants have also relied upon the previous judgment passed in Land Acquisition Reference Case No.37 of 1999 and allied matters being Exh.21. It further appears that the appellant has examined the witness at Exh.27. However, no other evidence is led before the Reference Court. The Reference Court, considering the deposition at Exh.22 as well as the previous award Exh.21 as well as the geographical location of the lands acquired and its proximity to the major town and its linking with the national highway and on consideration of the previous award, wherein the rental compensation is fixed at the rate of Rs.6/and Rs.5/which has become final in relation to the lands acquired for the similar purpose for Village Vasna Maramiya, has come to the conclusion that the rental compensation would come to Rs.3.80 per sq. mtr. per year. The contention raised by Mr. Mehta that the limitation is not considered also deserves to be negatived as it is recorded by the Reference Court in the impugned judgment and award that the claimants did raise the dispute on 24.1.1991 i.e. immediately after the award was passed within a period of two months from the date of passing of the award by the Land Acquisition Officer. However, it appears that the Special Land Acquisition Officer referred it to the Reference Court late as recorded by the Reference Court in Paragraph 13 of the impugned judgment and award. It is also evident from the observations made in Paragraph 12 of the impugned judgment and award that after considering the ratio laid down by this Court in the case of Patel Shambhubhai Bhaichanddas Vs. State of Gujarat & Anr. reported in 2007 (2) GLH 272 , the Reference Court has fixed the rental compensation only for 3 years. As noted hereinabove, except the oral deposition of the officer of the appellant, no other evidence is led by the appellant. On re-appreciation of the evidence, this Court is of the opinion that the Reference Court has correctly determined the rental compensation at the rate of Rs.3.80 per sq. mtr. per annum and no interference is called for by this Court in its appellate jurisdiction. 8. Accordingly, the appeals are meritless and deserves to be dismissed and are hereby dismissed. On re-appreciation of the evidence, this Court is of the opinion that the Reference Court has correctly determined the rental compensation at the rate of Rs.3.80 per sq. mtr. per annum and no interference is called for by this Court in its appellate jurisdiction. 8. Accordingly, the appeals are meritless and deserves to be dismissed and are hereby dismissed. The impugned judgment and award dated 29.4.2009 rendered in Land Acquisition Reference Nos.369 and 371 of 1998 by 2nd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nadiad is confirmed. Decree be drawn accordingly. The appellant shall deposit the amount as awarded by the Reference Court and as confirmed by this judgment, if not deposited, within a period of 3 (three) months from today. However, there shall be no order as to costs.