JUDGMENT M.R. Shah, J. 1. As common question of law and facts arise in this group of First Appeals and the dispute is "with respect to compensation under the Land Acquisition Act with respect to the lands acquired of very village Pansar, all these appeals are heard, decided and disposed of together by this common judgment and order. 2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Reference Court-learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kalol in Land Acquisition Reference Case Nos. 611 to 613 of 2012, by which, the learned Reference Court has partly allowed the said Reference and has awarded additional compensation to the claimants at the rate of Rs. 231/- per sq. mtr. with all other statutory benefits which may be available under the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) except benefits under section 23(1)(A) of the Act, the acquiring body ONGC has preferred present First Appeal Nos. 633 to 635 of 2014. 3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Reference Court-learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kalol in Land Acquisition Reference Case Nos. 630 to 635 of 2012, by which, the learned Reference Court has partly allowed the said Reference and has awarded additional compensation to the claimants at the rate of Rs. 240/- per sq. mtr. with respect to the acquired land of village Pansar, and for which Notification under section 4 was published on 17/12/1999, with all other statutory benefits which may be available under the Land Acquisition Act except benefits under section 23(1)(A) of the Act, the acquiring body ONGC has preferred present First Appeal Nos. 1093 to 1098 of 2014. 4. Having dissatisfied with the amount of compensation awarded by the learned reference court, the original claimants have also preferred Cross Objection Nos. 68 to 73 of 2014. 5. First Appeal Nos. 633 to 635 of 2014: 5.1. That the lands situated at village Pansar came to be acquired under the provisions of the Act for the public purpose-ONGC. That the notification under Section 4 of the Act was published on 17/12/1999. That the Notification under Section 6 of the Act was published on 18/9/2000. That the Special Land Acquisition Officer declared award under section 11 of the Act on 25/5/2001 determining market price and consequently awarding compensation at the rate of Rs. 20/- per sq. mtr. 5.2. That the notification under Section 4 of the Act was published on 17/12/1999. That the Notification under Section 6 of the Act was published on 18/9/2000. That the Special Land Acquisition Officer declared award under section 11 of the Act on 25/5/2001 determining market price and consequently awarding compensation at the rate of Rs. 20/- per sq. mtr. 5.2. At the instance of the original claimants, reference under section 18 were made to the learned reference court which were initially numbered as LAR No. 335 to 337 of 2002 and subsequently renumbered as LAR No. 611 to 613 of 2012. 5.3. Before the reference court, the original claimants relied upon previous judgment and award passed by the learned reference court in LAR No. 830 to 832 of 2009 (Ex. 20) by which with respect to the land acquired of very village Pansar, reference court awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 264.60. Relying upon its earlier judgment and award with respect to land acquired of the very village Pansar in LAR Nos. 830 to 832 of 2009 for which notification under section 4 was published on 25/5/2000 and deducting 5% for six months at the rate of 10% per annum, by the impugned judgment and award the learned reference court has awarded additional compensation at the rate of Rs. 231 per sq. mtr. With all statutory benefits which may be available under the Act except benefits under section 23(1)(A) of the Act. 5.4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the common judgment and award passed by the learned reference court in LAR Nos. 611 to 613 of 2012, acquiring body has preferred First Appeal Nos. 633 to 635 of 2014. 5.5. At this stage, it is required to be noted that as the reference court denied benefits under section 23(1)(A) of the Act, original claimants in First Appeal Nos. 633 and 634 of 2014 preferred review applications before the learned reference court and the learned reference court as such allowed the said review applications modify the judgment and award and granting benefits under section 23(1)(A) of the Act. However, against the said orders passed in review applications allowing the review applications, acquiring body have preferred Special Civil Application No. 3140 and 3141 of 2016 which are pending before the learned Single Judge. 5.6. Mr. However, against the said orders passed in review applications allowing the review applications, acquiring body have preferred Special Civil Application No. 3140 and 3141 of 2016 which are pending before the learned Single Judge. 5.6. Mr. Vijay Bairagra, learned advocate appearing for M/s. Trivedi and Gupta appearing on behalf of the acquiring body has vehemently submitted that in the present case while passing the impugned judgment and award, the learned reference court has heavily relied upon earlier judgment and award passed in LAR Nos. 830 to 832 of 2009 (Exh. 20). It is submitted that while passing the judgment and award in LAR Nos. 830 to 832 of 2009, the learned Reference Court has relied upon the judgment and award passed in Land Reference Case with respect to lands acquired of village Pansar, in which, ultimately Reference Court relied upon its earlier judgment and award passed in Land Acquisition Reference with respect to lands acquired of village Dhamasana. It is submitted that by common judgment and order passed in First Appeals Nos. 3157 of 2010 and other allied First Appeals with respect of lands acquired of village Dhamasana and for which notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 6/9/2000, the Division Bench has determined and awarded the compensation at the rate of Rs. 213 per sq. mtr. (preciously in First Appeal Nos. 29 of 2015 to 33 of 2015. It is submitted that therefore, in the present case also as the notification under Section 4 of the Act was published on 18/9/2000 and village Jhulasan is also adjacent to village Dhamasana and even otherwise considering the fact that while passing the impugned judgment and award, the learned Reference Court has ultimately relied upon its earlier judgment and award in LAR with respect to lands acquired of village Dhamasana, in the present case also claimants shall be entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs. 213/- per sq. mtr. 5.7. Mr. Vijay Bairagra, learned advocate appearing for M/s. Trivedi and Gupta appearing on behalf of the acquiring body has also requested to clarify that the original claimants shall be entitled to interest under Section 28A of the Act from the date of taking possession as per Section 16 of the Act. Making above submissions, it is requested to allow the respective First Appeals. 5.8. Mr. Shital Patel, learned advocate has appeared for Mr. Making above submissions, it is requested to allow the respective First Appeals. 5.8. Mr. Shital Patel, learned advocate has appeared for Mr. A.J. Patel, learned advocate for the original claimants. He is not in a position to dispute and is not disputing that while passing the impugned judgment and award, the learned Reference Court has relied upon its earlier judgment and award with respect to lands acquired of village Pansar and while delivering the judgment and award of village Pansar, the learned Reference Court has relied upon the judgment and award of village Dhamasana and for which notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 6/9/2000, the Division Bench in its judgment and order passed in First Appeal No. 3157 of 2010 and other allied First Appeals, has determined and awarded the compensation at the rate of Rs. 213/- per sq. mtr. 5.9. Mr. Shital Patel, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original claimants has submitted that the learned reference court has materially erred in not granting statutory benefits under section 23(1)(A) of the act. He has submitted that though the original claimants have succeeded in the review application in First Appeal Nos. 633 and 634 of 2014 and the learned reference court granted the benefits under section 23(1)(A), however, the same is subject matter before the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application Nos. 3140 and 3141 of 2016. He has requested to consider to grant statutory benefits available under section 23(1)(A) of the Act in the present proceedings. 5.10. Mr. Shital Patel, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original claimants has submitted that if this Court is inclined to grant benefits available under section 23(1)(A) of the act in the present proceedings, the original claimants withdraw the review applications preferred before the learned reference court against which Special Civil Application Nos. 3140 and 4141 of 2016 preferred and pending before the learned Single Judge. 5.11. Mr. Shital Patel, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original claimants has submitted that the learned reference court has materially erred in denying benefits available under section 23(1)(A) of the Act, which is statutory benefits available under the Act. 5.12. When attention of Mr. 3140 and 4141 of 2016 preferred and pending before the learned Single Judge. 5.11. Mr. Shital Patel, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original claimants has submitted that the learned reference court has materially erred in denying benefits available under section 23(1)(A) of the Act, which is statutory benefits available under the Act. 5.12. When attention of Mr. Shital Patel, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original claimants was drawn to the fact that the original claimants have not preferred any Cross Objections against refusal of grant of statutory benefits available under section 23(1)(A) of the Act, he has heavily relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Cotton and Oil Mills Versus State of Gujarat, reported in (1991) 1 SCC 262 ; in the case of Prahlad Versus State of Maharashtra, reported in (2010) 10 SCC 458 and in the case of Ranjana Prakash versus Divisional Manager, reported in (2011) 8 Scale 240 . 5.13. Relying upon the aforesaid decisions, it is vehemently submitted by Mr. Shital Patel, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original claimants that as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid decisions, original claimants can claim interest on compensation at any stage of proceedings under the Act and it can be claimed in the State Appeal and no separate appeal or Cross Objections before the High Court are required to be filed. 5.14. Now, so far as the request of the original claimants to grant benefits available under section 23(1)(A) of the Act in the appeal preferred by the acquiring body, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the acquiring body has submitted that considering Order 43 rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure, unless and until Cross Objections are filed, original claimants cannot claim benefits which are denied. 5.15. In support of his above submission, he has relied upon decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bansari and others versus Ram Phal, reported in (2003) 9 SCC 606 . 5.16. At this stage, Mr. 5.15. In support of his above submission, he has relied upon decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bansari and others versus Ram Phal, reported in (2003) 9 SCC 606 . 5.16. At this stage, Mr. Shital Patel, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original claimants has submitted that even original claimants have also filed note which may be treated as application under Order 41 Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure and has requested to grant statutory benefits under section 23(1)(A) available under the Act to do the complete justice. 6. Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties at length. Perused the impugned judgment and awards passed by the learned Reference Court. 6.1. At the outset, it is required to be noted that in the present case the lands situated at village Pansar, Taluka, Kalol, District Gandhinagar came to be acquired for the public purpose and for ONGC. The notification under Section 4 of the Act came to be published and issued on 17/12/1999. That the Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 20/- per sq. mtr. in LAR No. 611 to 613 of 2012 at the rate of Rs. 11 per sq. mtr. in LAR Nos. 630 to 635 of 2012, while declaring the award under Section 11 of the Act. That in the Reference at the instance of the original claimants and relying upon its earlier judgment and award passed in LAR Nos. Nos. 830 to 832 of 2009 with respect to lands acquired of village Pansar/Dhanesara and for which notification under Section 4 of the Act was published on 23/5/2000, the learned Reference Court has awarded additional compensation at the rate of Rs. 231/- per sq. mtrs. in LAR Nos. 611 to 613 of 2012 and additional compensation at the rate of Rs. 240/- per sq. mtrs. in LAR Nos. 630 to 635 of 2012. However, it is required to be noted and it is not in dispute that that in LAR Nos. Nos. 231/- per sq. mtrs. in LAR Nos. 611 to 613 of 2012 and additional compensation at the rate of Rs. 240/- per sq. mtrs. in LAR Nos. 630 to 635 of 2012. However, it is required to be noted and it is not in dispute that that in LAR Nos. Nos. 830 to 832 of 2009, on which, reliance has been placed by the learned Reference Court while passing the impugned judgment and award the Reference Court relied upon its earlier judgment and award in LAR with respect to lands acquired of village Pansar, in which, the Reference Court had relied upon its earlier judgment and award passed in LAR with respect to lands acquired of village Dhamasana. Ultimately, the reliance was placed upon the judgment and award passed in LAR with respect to lands acquired of village Dhamsana. It is not in dispute that by common judgment and order the Division Bench vide order dated 27/7/2015 passed in First Appeal Nos. 3157 of 2010 and other allied First Appeals (including First Appeals no. 29 of 2015 to 33 of 2015), the Division Bench has determined and awarded compensation for the lands acquired of village Dhamasana at the rate of Rs. 213 per sq. mtr. (with respect to land acquired of village Dhamasana, for which notification under Section 4 was issued on 29.02.2000). It cannot be disputed that judgment and award passed in other cases, more particularly, the lands acquired of the very village and/or nearby village or adjacent village can be considered and can be basis for awarding the compensation. Under the circumstances and considering the decision of the Division Bench dated 27/7/2015 passed in First Appeal Nos. 3157 of 2010 and other allied First Appeals (including First Appeals No. 29 of 2015 to 33 of 2015), the present Appeals are required to be partly allowed and the original claimants shall be entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs. 213/- per sq. mtrs. The Land Acquisition Officer has awarded Rs. 20/- per sq. mtr. in LAR Nos. 611 to 613 of 2012, therefore, the original claimants of LAR Nos. 611 to 613 of 2012 shall be entitled to additional compensation at the rate of Rs. 193.20 ps. per sq. mtr. The Land Acquisition Officer has awarded Rs. 11/- per sq. mtr. in LAR Nos. 630 to 635 of 2012. Therefore, the original claimants of LAR Nos. 611 to 613 of 2012, therefore, the original claimants of LAR Nos. 611 to 613 of 2012 shall be entitled to additional compensation at the rate of Rs. 193.20 ps. per sq. mtr. The Land Acquisition Officer has awarded Rs. 11/- per sq. mtr. in LAR Nos. 630 to 635 of 2012. Therefore, the original claimants of LAR Nos. 630 to 635 of 2012 shall be entitled to additional compensation at the rate of Rs. 202 per sq. mtr. To the aforesaid extent, the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Reference Court is required to be modified and present First Appeals are required to be partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. 6.2. Now, so far as the request on behalf of the original claimants to grant benefits under section 23(1)(A) of the Act in the appeal preferred by the acquiring body without filing Cross Objections in the appeal preferred by the acquiring body is concerned, it is true that in the present case, original claimants have not preferred any Cross Objections against denial of the benefits under section 23(1)(A) of the Act. However, it is required to be noted that the original claimants of LAR Nos. 633 and 634 of 2012 review applications were preferred before the learned reference court and as such the learned reference court has allowed the said review applications granting benefits under section 123(1)(A) of the Act, however against the order passed in the review applications, acquiring body have preferred Special Civil Application Nos. 3140 and 3141 of 2016. Mr. Patel, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original claimants has stated at the bar that to avoid any further technicalities and if this Court is inclined to grant statutory benefits under section 23(1)(A) of the Act, the original claimants shall withdraw the said review applications. 6.3. Under the circumstances, the review applications preferred by the original claimants in LAR Nos. 633 and 634 of 2012 against which Special Civil Application No. 3140 and 3141 of 2016 are pending, stand withdrawn. 6.4. Now, so far as the prayer of the original claimants to grant benefits under section 23(1)(A) of the act which has been denied by the reference court is concerned, it is required to be noted that the benefits under section 23(1)(A) is statutory benefits available under the Act. 6.4. Now, so far as the prayer of the original claimants to grant benefits under section 23(1)(A) of the act which has been denied by the reference court is concerned, it is required to be noted that the benefits under section 23(1)(A) is statutory benefits available under the Act. Therefore, as such the original claimants shall be entitled to the said statutory benefits available under section 23(1)(A) of the Act. Therefore, the question which is posed for consideration of this Court is whether without filing any Cross Objections in the appeals preferred by the acquiring body, such benefits can be granted to the original claimants or not. 6.5. Identical question came to be considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Cotton and Oil Mills (supra). In the said case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, High Court rejected the claim of the original claimant regarding interest on the ground that his Cross Objections are time barred and the claimants had no right to claim the same in the State Appeal. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, while setting aside the aforesaid order of the High court, in para 13 to 16 has observed and held as under:- "13. There is no dispute that under the Act the claimant is entitled to compensation at the rate of the market value of the land on the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act. Section 23(1) of the act enumerates the matters which are to be taken into consideration in determining the compensation. On a reference under Section 18 of the Act the parties go to trial before the Court primarily on the issue of determination of market value of the land. So far as award of interest is concerned it is never an issue between the parties. Once the conditions under section 28 or Section 34 of the act are satisfied the award of interest is consequential and automatic. 14. The High Court while appreciating the point in issue did not consider the mandatory provisions of section 34 of the Act. The said section specifically provides that when the amount of compensation is not paid on or before taking possession of the land the Collector shall pay interest at 6 Per Cent per annum from the date of taking over possession. The payment of interest is not dependent on any claim by the person whose land has been acquired. The said section specifically provides that when the amount of compensation is not paid on or before taking possession of the land the Collector shall pay interest at 6 Per Cent per annum from the date of taking over possession. The payment of interest is not dependent on any claim by the person whose land has been acquired. There can be no controversy or any lis between the parties regarding payment of interest. When once the provision of section 34 are attracted it is obligatory for the Collector to pay the interest. If he fails to do so the same can be claimed from the Court in proceedings under section 18 of the Act or even from the appellate Court/Courts thereafter. 15. We have carefully examined the reasoning of the High Court in reaching the conclusion which we have reproduced in the earlier part of this judgment. We do not agree with the interpretation placed by the High Court on various provisions of the act. Reading section 23 with section 26 of the Act it is clear that the award, which is deemed to be a decree, is the sum total of conclusions reached by the Courts in determining compensation under section 211 of the Act on appreciation of the evidence between the parties. The costs tinder section 27 and the interest under sections 28 and 34 are added to the compensation amount to make it a consolidated award. The costs and interest under the Act if not awarded by the lower court can always be awarded by higher courts in any proceedings under the Act and to any party entitled to the same under the Act. There is inherent evidence in the wording of sections 28 and 34 to show that the framers of the Act intended to assure the payment of interest to the person whose land was acquired and it was not the intention to subject the said payment to procedural hazards. Section 34 lays down that "the Collector shall pay the "amount awarded with interest at 6 Per Cent per annum..." The legislative mandate is clear. It is a directive to the Collector to pay the interest in a given circumstance. Section 34 nowhere says that the interest amount is to be included in the award decree as prepared under section 23(1) read with section 26 of the Act. It is a directive to the Collector to pay the interest in a given circumstance. Section 34 nowhere says that the interest amount is to be included in the award decree as prepared under section 23(1) read with section 26 of the Act. Similarly, section 28 provides "the award of the Court may direct that the collector shall pay interest". Here also the award under section 23(1) read with section 26 has been kept distinct from the payment of interest under the section. The interest to be paid under section 34 and also under section 28 is of different character than the compensation amount under section 23(1) of the Act. whereas the interest, if payable under the act, can be claimed at any stage of the proceedings under the act, the amount of compensation under section 23(1) which is an award-decree under section 26, subject to the rules of the procedure and limitation. The rule of procedure are hand maiden of justice. The procedural hassle cannot come. In the way of substantive rights of citizens under the Act. 16. We do not, therefore, agree with the reasoning and the findings reached by the High Court. We are of the opinion that it was not necessary for the appellant-claimant to have filed separate appeals, cross-objections before the High Court for the purpose of claiming interest under section 28 and section 34 of the Act. He could claim the interest in filed cross-the State-Appeal. The fact that objections which were dismissed as time barred is wholly irrelevant." Thus, in the aforesaid decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has further held that the original claimants can claim statutory benefits on compensation at any stage of the proceedings under the Act and even if it can be claimed in state Appeal and no separate appeal or cross objections before the High Court are required to be filed. 6.6. In the case of Prahlad (supra) where the claimants filed note under Order 41 Rule 33 without filing any Cross Appeal or Cross Objections from the order of the reference court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said case has observed and held that the original claimants shall be entitled to statutory benefits available under the Act on the basis of the Order 41 Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 6.7. 6.7. Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the subsequent decision in the case of Ranjana Prakash (supra). 6.8. Now, so far as the reliance placed upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bansari and others (supra) by the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the acquiring body is concerned, it is required to be noted that in the case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was not dealing with statutory benefits available under the Land Acquisition Act, which is there in the present case. Under the circumstances, on facts, the said decision shall not be applicable to the facts of the case on hand and with respect to the statutory benefits available under the Act. 6.9. Under the circumstances and in view of the above decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and as the benefits under section 23(1)(A) are statutory benefits and considering provisions of Order 41 Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure, we are of the opinion that the original claimants shall be entitled to statutory benefits under section 23(1)(A) of the Act and said benefits in the appeal preferred by the acquiring body without preferring any Cross Appeal or Cross Objections, deserves to be granted and are hereby granted and it is held that the original claimants shall be entitled to compensation with statutory benefits including benefits under section 23(1)(A) of the Act. 6.10. Under the circumstances, respective First Appeal Nos. 633 to 635 of 2014 are required to be partly allowed and the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Reference Court-learned Additional Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kalol in LAR Case Nos. 611 to 613 of 2012 is required to be modified and it is required to be held that original claimants shall be entitled to additional compensation at the rate of Rs. 193/- per sq. mtr. for the lands acquired of village Pansar, Taluka Kalol, District Gandhinagar with all other statutory benefits which may be available under the Act including benefits under section 23(1)(A) of the Act. However, it is required to be clarified that the original claimants shall be entitled to interest under Section 28A of the Act from the date of taking possession under Section 16 of the Act. First Appeal Nos. 633 to 635 of 2014 are required to be allowed to the aforesaid extent. 7. However, it is required to be clarified that the original claimants shall be entitled to interest under Section 28A of the Act from the date of taking possession under Section 16 of the Act. First Appeal Nos. 633 to 635 of 2014 are required to be allowed to the aforesaid extent. 7. First Appeal Nos. 1093 to 1098 of 2014: 7.1. That the lands situated at village Pansar came to be acquired under the provisions of the Act for the public purpose-ONGC. That the notification under Section 4 of the Act was published on 17/12/1999. That the Notification under Section 6 of the Act was published on 18/9/2000. That the Special Land Acquisition Officer declared award under section 11 of the Act on 25/5/2001 determining market price and consequently awarding compensation at the rate of Rs. 11/- per sq. mtr. 7.2. At the instance of the original claimants, reference under section 18 were made before the learned reference court which were initially numbered as LAR No. 312 to 317 of 2012 and subsequently renumbered as LAR Nos. 630 to 636 of 2012. 7.3. Before the reference court, the original claimants relied upon previous judgment and award passed by the learned reference court in LAR No. 830 to 832 of 2009 (Ex. 27) by which with respect to the land acquired of very village Pansar, reference court awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 264.60. Relying upon its earlier judgment and award with respect to land acquired of the very village Pansar in LAR Nos. 830 to 832 of 2009 for which notification under section 4 was published on 25/5/2000 and deducting 5% for six months at the rate of 10% per annum, by the impugned judgment and award the learned reference court has awarded additional compensation at the rate of Rs. 231 per sq. mtr. with all statutory benefits which may be available under the Act except benefits under section 23(1)(A) of the Act. 7.4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the common judgment and award passed by the learned reference court in LAR Nos. 630 to 635 of 2012, acquiring body has preferred First Appeal Nos. 1093 to 1098 of 2014. 7.5. Mr. mtr. with all statutory benefits which may be available under the Act except benefits under section 23(1)(A) of the Act. 7.4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the common judgment and award passed by the learned reference court in LAR Nos. 630 to 635 of 2012, acquiring body has preferred First Appeal Nos. 1093 to 1098 of 2014. 7.5. Mr. Vijay Bairagra, learned advocate appearing for M/s. Trivedi and Gupta appearing on behalf of the acquiring body has vehemently submitted that in the present case, while passing the impugned judgment and award, the learned reference court has heavily relied upon earlier judgment and award passed in LAR Nos. 830 to 832 of 2009 (Exh. 27). It is submitted that while passing the judgment and award in LAR Nos. 830 to 832 of 2009, the learned Reference Court has relied upon the judgment and award passed in Land Reference Case with respect to lands acquired of village Pansar, in which, ultimately Reference Court relied upon its earlier judgment and award passed in Land Acquisition Reference with respect to lands acquired of village Dhamasana. It is submitted that by common judgment and order passed in First Appeals Nos. 3157 of 2010 and other allied First Appeals with respect of lands acquired of village Dhamasana and for which notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 6/9/2000, the Division Bench has determined and awarded the compensation at the rate of Rs. 213 per sq. mtr. (preciously in First Appeal Nos. 29 of 2015 to 33 of 2015. It is submitted that therefore, in the present case also as the notification under Section 4 of the Act was published on 18/9/2000 and village Jhulasan is also adjacent to village Dhamasana and even otherwise considering the fact that while passing the impugned judgment and award, the learned Reference Court has ultimately relied upon its earlier judgment and award in LAR with respect to lands acquired of village Dhamasana, in the present case also claimants shall be entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs. 213/- per sq. mtr. 7.6. Mr. Vijay Bairagra, learned advocate appearing for M/s. Trivedi and Gupta appearing on behalf of the acquiring body has also requested to clarify that the original claimants shall be entitled to interest under Section 28A of the Act from the date of taking possession as per Section 16 of the Act. 213/- per sq. mtr. 7.6. Mr. Vijay Bairagra, learned advocate appearing for M/s. Trivedi and Gupta appearing on behalf of the acquiring body has also requested to clarify that the original claimants shall be entitled to interest under Section 28A of the Act from the date of taking possession as per Section 16 of the Act. Making above submissions, it is requested to allow the respective First Appeals. 7.7. Mr. Shital Patel, learned advocate has appeared for Mr. A.J. Patel, learned advocate for the original claimants. He is not in a position to dispute and is not disputing that while passing the impugned judgment and award, the learned Reference Court has relied upon its earlier judgment and award with respect to lands acquired of village Pansar and while delivering the judgment and award of village Pansar, the learned Reference Court has relied upon the judgment and award of village Dhamasana and for which notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 6/9/2000, the Division Bench in its judgment and order passed in First Appeal No. 3157 of 2010 and other allied First Appeals, has determined and awarded the compensation at the rate of Rs. 213/- per sq. mtr. 7.8. Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties at length. Perused the impugned judgment and awards passed by the learned Reference Court. 7.9. At the outset, it is required to be noted that in the present case the lands situated at village Pansar, Taluka, Kalol, District Gandhinagar came to be acquired for the public purpose and for ONGC. The notification under Section 4 of the Act came to be published and issued on 17/12/1999. That the Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 11 per sq. mtr. in LAR Nos. 630 to 635 of 2012, while declaring the award under Section 11 of the Act. That in the Reference at the instance of the original claimants and relying upon its earlier judgment and award passed in LAR Nos. Nos. 830 to 832 of 2009 with respect to lands acquired of adjoining village Jhulasan and for which notification under Section 4 of the Act was published on 23/5/2000. The learned Reference Court has awarded additional compensation at the rate of Rs. 240/- per sq. mtrs. in LAR Nos. 630 to 635 of 2012. Nos. 830 to 832 of 2009 with respect to lands acquired of adjoining village Jhulasan and for which notification under Section 4 of the Act was published on 23/5/2000. The learned Reference Court has awarded additional compensation at the rate of Rs. 240/- per sq. mtrs. in LAR Nos. 630 to 635 of 2012. However, it is required to be noted and it is not in dispute that that in LAR Nos. Nos. 830 to 832 of 2009, on which, reliance has been placed by the learned Reference Court while passing the impugned judgment and award the Reference Court relied upon its earlier judgment and award in LAR with respect to lands acquired of village Pansar, in which, the Reference Court had relied upon its earlier judgment and award passed in LAR with respect to lands acquired of village Dhamasana. Ultimately, the reliance was placed upon the judgment and award passed in LAR with respect to lands acquired of village Dhamsana. It is not in dispute that by common judgment and order the Division Bench vide order dated 27/7/2015 passed in First Appeal Nos. 3157 of 2010 and other allied First Appeals (including First Appeals No. 29 of 2015 to 33 of 2015), the Division Bench has determined and awarded compensation for the lands acquired of village Dhamasana at the rate of Rs. 213 per sq. mtr. (with respect to land acquired of village Dhamasana, for which notification under Section 4 was issued on 29.02.2000). It cannot be disputed that judgment and award passed in other cases, more particularly, the lands acquired of the very village and/or nearby village or adjacent village can be considered and can be basis for awarding the compensation. Under the circumstances and considering the decision of the Division Bench dated 27/7/2015 passed in First Appeal Nos. 3157 of 2010 and other allied First Appeals (including First Appeals No. 29 of 2015 to 33 of 2015), the present Appeals are required to be partly allowed and the original claimants shall be entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs. 213/- per sq. mtrs. The Land Acquisition Officer has awarded Rs. 11/- per sq. mtr. in LAR Nos. 630 to 635 of 2012. Therefore, the original claimants of LAR Nos. 630 to 635 of 2012 shall be entitled to additional compensation at the rate of Rs. 202 per sq. mtr. 213/- per sq. mtrs. The Land Acquisition Officer has awarded Rs. 11/- per sq. mtr. in LAR Nos. 630 to 635 of 2012. Therefore, the original claimants of LAR Nos. 630 to 635 of 2012 shall be entitled to additional compensation at the rate of Rs. 202 per sq. mtr. To the aforesaid extent, the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Reference Court is required to be modified and present First Appeals are partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. 7.10. Under the circumstances, respective First Appeal Nos. 1093 to 1998 of 2015 are required to be partly allowed and the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Reference Court-learned Additional Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kalol in LAR Case Nos. 630 to 635 of 2012 is required to be modified and it is required to be held that original claimants shall be entitled to additional compensation at the rate of Rs. 202/- per sq. mtr. for the lands acquired of village Pansar, Taluka Kalol, District Gandhinagar with all other statutory benefits which may be available under the Act including benefits under section 23(1)(A) of the Act. However, it is required to be clarified that the original claimants shall be entitled to interest under Section 28A of the Act from the date of taking possession under Section 16 of the Act. 8. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, respective First Appeal Nos. 633 to 635 of 2014 are partly allowed. The impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Reference Court-learned Additional Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kalol in LAR Case Nos. 611 to 613 of 2012 is hereby modified and it is held that original claimants shall be entitled to additional compensation at the rate of Rs. 193/- per sq. mtr. for the lands acquired of village Pansar, Taluka Kalol, District Gandhinagar with all other statutory benefits which may be available under the Act including benefits under section 23(1)(A) of the Act. However, it is clarified that the original claimants shall be entitled to interest under Section 28A of the Act from the date of taking possession under Section 16 of the Act. First Appeal Nos. 633 to 635 of 2014 are allowed to the aforesaid extent. No costs. Registry is directed to send the Record and Proceedings of the case to the learned trial Court forthwith. First Appeal Nos. 633 to 635 of 2014 are allowed to the aforesaid extent. No costs. Registry is directed to send the Record and Proceedings of the case to the learned trial Court forthwith. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, respective First Appeal Nos. 1093 to 1998 of 2015 are partly allowed. The impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Reference Court-learned Additional Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kalol in LAR Case Nos. 630 to 635 of 2012 is hereby modified and it is held that original claimants shall be entitled to additional compensation at the rate of Rs. 202/- per sq. mtr. for the lands acquired of village Pansar, Taluka Kalol, District Gandhinagar with all other statutory benefits which may be available under the Act including benefits under section 23(1)(A) of the Act. However, it is clarified that the original claimants shall be entitled to interest under Section 28A of the Act from the date of taking possession under Section 16 of the Act. First Appeal Nos. 1093 to 1098 of 2014 are allowed to the aforesaid extent. No costs. Registry is directed to send the Record and Proceedings of the case to the learned trial Court forthwith. In view of the above order passed in the main respective First Appeals, Cross Objection Nos. 68 to 73 of 2014 deserves to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed. No costs.