JUDGMENT : M.R. Shah, J. 1. As common question of law and facts arise in this group of appeals and cross objections, they are disposed of by this common judgment and order. First Appeal Nos. 1436/2015 to 1470/2015 2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common judgment and award passed by the learned 3rd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kutch, at Bhuj (hereinafter referred to as "Reference Court") in Land Reference Case No. 1/2004 and Land Reference Case Nos. 11/2007 to 44/2007 by which the learned Reference Court has partly allowed the said references and has awarded the compensation for the lands acquired of the village Lifari, Taluka Nakhatrana at the rate of Rs. 24 per sq. meter with all other statutory benefits which may be available under the Land Acquisition Act, the acquiring body - Gujarat Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "acquiring body") has preferred the First Appeals Nos. 1436/2015 to 1470/2015. Cross Objection Nos. 37/2016 to 65/2016 2.1 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the very impugned common judgment and award, the original claimants have also preferred Cross Objection Nos. 37/2016 to 65/2016 requesting to enhance the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Reference Court. First Appeal Nos. 1795/2015 to 1810/2015 2.2 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common judgment and award passed by the learned Reference Court in Land Reference Case Nos. 10/2010 to 25/2010 by which the learned Reference Court has partly allowed the said references awarding the compensation for the lands acquired of the village Dedrani, Taluka Lakhpat at the rate of Rs. 39 per sq. meter with all other statutory benefits which may be available to the original claimants under the Land Acquisition Act, the acquiring body has preferred the First Appeals Nos. 1795/2015 to 1810/2015. First Appeal Nos. 1436/2015 to 1470/2015 3. That the land situated at village Lifari, Taluka Nakhatrana came to be acquired under the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as "Act") for the public purpose - GMDC for excavation of lignite etc. That the notification under Section 4 of the Act came to be issued on 25.05.1998. The notification Section 6 of the Act came to be issued on 10.06.1999. That thereafter the Special Land Acquisition Officer declared the award under Section 11 of the Act determining and awarding the compensation at the rate of Rs. 0.33 paise per sq. meter. That the notification under Section 4 of the Act came to be issued on 25.05.1998. The notification Section 6 of the Act came to be issued on 10.06.1999. That thereafter the Special Land Acquisition Officer declared the award under Section 11 of the Act determining and awarding the compensation at the rate of Rs. 0.33 paise per sq. meter. The claimants were not satisfied with the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Special Land Acquisition Officer and therefore, at their instance references were made to the District Court, Kutch which were registered as Land Reference Case Nos. 1/2000 to 35/2000. Thereafter, the aforesaid land references were transferred to the Court of learned Reference Court which were renumbered as Land Reference Case Nos. 1/2004 and Land Reference Case Nos. 11/2007 to 44/2007. 3.1 That relying upon the consent award between the land owner and GMDC passed in Land Reference Case No. 5/2011 with respect to the lands acquired of adjacent village i.e. Mata Na Madh and for which the notification under section 4 of the Act was issued on 20.11.1998 and relying upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in First Appeal No. 4238/2007 and other allied First Appeals with respect to the lands acquired of village Akri Mota, Dhareshi, Fulra and Khanot, by common impugned judgment and award the learned Reference Court has partly allowed the said references and determined the compensation at the rate of Rs. 24 per sq. meter. 3.2 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common judgment and award passed by the learned Reference Court in Land Reference Case Nos. 1/2004 and Land Reference Case Nos. 11/2007 to 44/2007 awarding compensation at the rate of Rs. 24 per sq. meter with respect to the lands acquired by village Lifari, Taluka Nakhatrana for which notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 25.05.1998, the acquiring body has preferred the First Appeal Nos. 1436/2015 to 1470/2015. As observed hereinabove, the original claimants have also preferred the Cross Objections requesting to enhance the amount of compensation. First Appeal Nos. 1795/2015 to 1810/2015 4. That the land situated at village Dedrani, Taluka Lakhpat came to be acquired under the provisions of the Act for the public purpose - GMDC for their lignite project. The notification under Section 4 of the Act came to be issued on 15.03.2005. First Appeal Nos. 1795/2015 to 1810/2015 4. That the land situated at village Dedrani, Taluka Lakhpat came to be acquired under the provisions of the Act for the public purpose - GMDC for their lignite project. The notification under Section 4 of the Act came to be issued on 15.03.2005. The notification under Section 6 of the Act came to be issued on 25.01.2006. That the Land Acquisition Officer declared the award under Section 11 on 27.09.2007 determining and awarding the compensation at the rate of 0.30 paise per sq. meter. As the claimants were dissatisfied with the amount awarded by the learned Special Land Acquisition Officer, at their instances, references were made to the District Court which were initially numbered as Land Reference Case Nos. 1/2010 to 16/2010 which were subsequently renumbered as Land Reference Case Nos. 10/2010 to 25/2010. That relying upon the consent award passed by the learned Reference Court in Land Reference Case No. 5/2011 with respect to the lands acquired of village Mata Na Madh and considering the fact that in the present case the notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 15.03.2005 and in the case of lands acquired of village Mata Na Madh for which the consent award was passed, the notification was issued in the year 1998, granting 10% price rise per annum, by impugned common judgment and award the learned Reference Court has awarded the compensation determining the market price at the rate of Rs. 39 per sq. meter. 4.1 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common judgment and award passed by the learned Reference Court in Land Reference Case Nos. 10/2010 to 25/2010, the acquiring body - original opponent No. 2 - GMDC has preferred the present First Appeal Nos. 1795/2015 to 1810/2015. 5. Shri K.M. Patel, learned Senior Advocate has appeared with Shri Varun Patel, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the acquiring body. Shri Shalin Mehta, learned Senior Advocate has appeared with Shri Anand R. Patel, learned advocate on behalf of the original claimants in First Appeal Nos. 1436/2015 to 1470/2015. Shri A.V. Prajapati, learned advocate has appeared on behalf of the original claimants in First Appeal Nos. 1795/2015 to 1810/2015. 5.1 Ms. Shruti Pathak and Shri Rakesh Patel, learned Assistant Government Pleaders have appeared on behalf of the State in respective appeals. 6. 1436/2015 to 1470/2015. Shri A.V. Prajapati, learned advocate has appeared on behalf of the original claimants in First Appeal Nos. 1795/2015 to 1810/2015. 5.1 Ms. Shruti Pathak and Shri Rakesh Patel, learned Assistant Government Pleaders have appeared on behalf of the State in respective appeals. 6. Shri K.M. Patel, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the acquiring body - GMDC has vehemently submitted that the learned Reference Court has materially erred in relying upon the consent award passed in Land Reference Case No. 5/2011 with respect to the lands acquired of village Mata Na Madh. It is submitted that relying upon the consent award passed in Acquisition Reference Case No. 5/2011 with respect to the lands acquired of village Mata Na Madh, the learned Reference Court has materially erred in awarding the compensation determining the market price at the rate of Rs. 24 per sq. meter. It is submitted that the learned Reference Court has materially erred in not properly appreciating the fact that in Acquisition Reference Case No. 5/2011 in which the consent award was passed, the market price was determined at Rs. 3,10,000 per Acre and that too it was inclusive of solatium, price rise, interest etc. It is submitted that as such when the Division Bench of this Court passed the order in First Appeal No. 4238/2007 and other allied First Appeals which was passed relying upon the consent award passed in Reference Case No. 5/2011 with respect to the lands acquired of village Mata Na Madh, by mistake the market price is considered as Rs. 24 per sq. meter with respect to the lands acquired of village Mata Na Madh. It is submitted that as such as per the consent award the market price was determined at Rs. 3,10,000/- per Acre and therefore, as such the compensation in all would come to Rs. 76.13 per sq. meter and Rs. 24 per sq. meter was determined including the amount of solatium, price rise, interest etc. It is submitted that therefore the learned Reference Court has materially erred in solely relying upon the consent award passed in Acquisition Reference Case No. 5/2011 and the decision of this Court in First Appeal No. 4238/2007 and other allied First Appeals. 6.1 Shri Patel, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the acquiring body, relying upon the report submitted by the CEPT (Exh. 6.1 Shri Patel, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the acquiring body, relying upon the report submitted by the CEPT (Exh. 104) has submitted that even considering the said report the market price of the land acquired of villages Lifari and Dedrani cannot be said to be Rs. 24 & Rs. 39 per sq. meter respectively as determined by the learned Reference Court. It is submitted that if the report of the CEPT (Exh. 104) is considered which was after thorough inquiry, in that case, the learned Reference Court ought not to have determined the compensation/market price as determined by impugned common judgment and award. Therefore, making above submissions and relying upon the report of the CEPT (Exh. 104) it is requested to allow the present First Appeals and modify the impugned common judgment and award passed by the learned Reference Court accordingly. 7. On the other hand, Shri Shalin Mehta, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the original claimants in First Appeal Nos. 1436/2015 to 1470/2015 has vehemently submitted that if the report submitted by the CEPT (Exh. 104) is considered, in that case the market price of the land acquired of village Lifari and Dedrani would come to Rs. 55 per sq. meter. It is submitted that therefore the learned Reference Court has materially erred in relying upon the consent award passed in Land Reference Case No. 5/2011 with respect to the lands acquired of village Mata Na Madh and consequently relying upon the judgment and order passed by this Court in First Appeal No. 4238/2007 and other allied First Appeals. 7.1 It is further submitted by Shri Mehta, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the original claimants in First Appeal Nos. 1436/2015 to 1470/2015 that even otherwise the learned Reference Court has materially erred in solely relying upon the consent award passed in Land Reference Case No. 5/2011 with respect to the lands acquired of village Mata Na Madh. It is submitted that as such with respect to the lands acquired of village Mata Na Madh, the possession of the acquired land of village Mata Na Madh was taken over in the year 2008-09/2012 and therefore, the market price of the land acquired was considered/determined at Rs. 24 per sq. meter. It is submitted that as such with respect to the lands acquired of village Mata Na Madh, the possession of the acquired land of village Mata Na Madh was taken over in the year 2008-09/2012 and therefore, the market price of the land acquired was considered/determined at Rs. 24 per sq. meter. It is submitted that in the present case the possession was taken over in the year 1999 immediately after the notification under Section 6 of the Act and therefore, considering the interest under Section 28 of the Act i.e. 9% for the first year and 15% thereafter, the market price in the present case is required to be considered and determined at Rs. 55 per sq. meter. 7.2 Shri Mehta, learned Senior Advocate has also relied upon the report submitted by the CEPT (Exh. 104) and relying upon the same has submitted that even considering the report submitted by the CEPT, the market price of the land acquired in the present case would be much more than determined/assessed by the learned Reference Court. Making above submissions, he has requested to dismiss the appeals preferred by the acquiring body - GMDC and allow the Cross Objections accordingly. 8. Shri A.V. Prajapati, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original claimants in First Appeal Nos. 1795/2015 to 1810/2015 has adopted the submissions made by Shri Mehta, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the original claimants in First Appeal Nos. 1436/2015 to 1470/2015. 9. Heard learned advocates appearing for respective parties at length. We have perused the impugned common judgment and award passed by the learned Reference Court. At the outset it is required to be noted and it is not in dispute that solely relying upon the consent award passed in Land Reference Case No. 5/2011 with respect to the lands acquired of village Mata Na Madh for which the notification under Section 4 was issued on 20.11.1998, the learned Reference Court has awarded the compensation determining the market price at Rs. 24 per sq. meter. However, it is the case on behalf of both the parties that if the report submitted by the CEPT (Exh. 104) would have been considered, in that case, market price determined by the learned Reference Court would be different. 24 per sq. meter. However, it is the case on behalf of both the parties that if the report submitted by the CEPT (Exh. 104) would have been considered, in that case, market price determined by the learned Reference Court would be different. 9.1 It is the case on behalf of the acquiring body that when the consent award was passed in Land Reference Case No. 5/2011 with respect to the lands acquired of village Mata Na Madh, market price was determined at Rs. 3,10,000/- per Acre and Rs. 24 per sq. meter was considered including solatium, market price, interest etc. under Section 23A of the Act. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the GMDC has also relied upon the report submitted by the CEPT (Exh. 104). 9.2 On the other hand it is the case on behalf of the original claimants that the consent award passed in Land Reference Case No. 5/2011 with respect to the lands acquired of village Mata Na Madh is not comparable as in the case of village Mata Na Madh, the possession was taken over later on i.e. in the year 2008-09/2012 and in the present case the possession was taken over in the year 1999 and therefore, considering Section 28 of the Act, granting 9% interest for the first year from the date of taking the possession and at the rate of 15% for the subsequent years, the market price would be Rs. 55 per sq. meter. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the original claimants has also heavily relied upon the report submitted by the CEPT (Exh. 104). 9.3 Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and when the learned Reference Court has not considered the report of CEPT produced at Exh. 104, on which the reliance has been placed by both the parties, and the submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing for respective parties recorded herein above, we are of the opinion that the matters are required to be remanded to the learned Reference Court to decide the same afresh and after considering the rival submissions made on behalf of the respective parties more particularly the submissions recorded herein above. The learned Reference Court is also required to address itself with respect to the CEPT report produced at Exh. 104. 10. The learned Reference Court is also required to address itself with respect to the CEPT report produced at Exh. 104. 10. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above and without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the respective parties, all these First Appeals are allowed. The impugned common judgment and award passed by the learned 3rd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kutch, at Bhuj are hereby quashed and set aside and the matters are remanded to the learned Reference Court to decide the respective references afresh and in accordance with law and on merits and determine the compensation on appreciation of evidence on record more particularly considering the rival submissions to be made on behalf of the respective parties and the report of the CEPT produced at Exh. 104 as well as the consent award passed in Land Reference Case No. 5/2011 with respect to the lands acquired of village Mata Na Madh. However, it is made clear and it is specifically observed that we have not expressed anything on merits whether the original claimants are entitled to compensation at the rate less than Rs. 24 per sq. meter as contended on behalf of the acquiring body and/or whether the original claimants shall be entitled to the compensation at the rate of Rs. 55 per sq. meter as contended on behalf of the original claimants. The aforesaid shall be decided by the learned Reference Court in accordance with law and on merits and on the basis of the evidence on record. All the contentions/defences which may be available to the respective parties are kept open, to be considered by the learned Reference Court in accordance with law and on merits. With this all these First Appeals are allowed/disposed of to the aforesaid extent and respective Cross Objections also stand disposed of. No costs. In the facts and circumstances of the case, on remand the learned Reference Court to finally decide and dispose of the respective references in light of the observations made hereinabove at the earliest but not later than 9 months from today. Registry is directed to return the Record & Proceedings of the matters to the learned Reference Court forthwith. In the facts and circumstances of the case, on remand the learned Reference Court to finally decide and dispose of the respective references in light of the observations made hereinabove at the earliest but not later than 9 months from today. Registry is directed to return the Record & Proceedings of the matters to the learned Reference Court forthwith. Before parting with the present judgment and order, it is observed that whatever the amount the original claimants have withdrawn pursuant to the orders passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Civil Application Nos. 8004/2015 to 8038/2015, the same shall be continued to be retained by them and the balance amount which are directed to be deposited in fixed deposit with the Nazir of the learned Reference Court shall be continued to be invested in the fixed deposit, however the same shall be subject to the ultimate outcome of the references on remand. Meaning thereby whatever the interim order was passed pursuant to the order in Civil Application Nos. 8004/2015 to 8038/2015 shall continue during the final disposal of the references on remand. However, as observed hereinabove, the same shall be subject to the ultimate outcome of the respective references on remand.