JUDGMENT : M.R. Shah, J. 1. As both these appeals arise out of the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kheda-Nadiad-learned Reference Court passed in LAR No. 180 of 2002, both these appeals are decided and disposed of by this common judgment and order. 2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Reference Court-learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kheda-Nadiad passed in Land Acquisition Reference Case No. 180 of 2002, by which, learned Reference Court has enhanced the amount of compensation and has awarded compensation at Rs. 120 per sq. mtr. with all other statutory benefits which may be available under the Act, the appellant-original claimants have preferred First Appeal No. 1448 of 2016. 2.1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Reference Court-learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kheda-Nadiad passed in Land Acquisition Reference Case No. 180 of 2002, by which, learned Reference Court has enhanced the amount of compensation and has awarded compensation at Rs. 120 per sq. mtr with all other statutory benefits which may be available under the Act the appellant-acquiring body has preferred First Appeal No. 1561 of 2015. 3. The land situated at village Kanera District Kheda came to be acquired under the provision of Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") for the purpose of storage of petroleum products of Bharat Petroleum Company Limited (acquiring body). That the notification under Section 4 of the Act came to be published on 19.05.1999. That the notification under Section 6 of the Act came to be published on 10.05.2000. That the Special Land Acquisition Officer declared the award under Section 11 of the Act on 23.03.2002 awarding compensation determining the market price of the lands at Rs. 15 per sq. mtr. That at the instance of the original claimants, Reference under Section 18 of the Act was made to the learned District Court, Kheda, which was numbered as LAR No. 180 of 2002, which was subsequently transferred to learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kheda at Nadiad. 3.1. That the reference was opposed by the original opponent including acquiring body by filing written statement at Exhs. 22 and 12 respectively. That the learned Reference Court framed the issue at Exh. 16. 3.2. 3.1. That the reference was opposed by the original opponent including acquiring body by filing written statement at Exhs. 22 and 12 respectively. That the learned Reference Court framed the issue at Exh. 16. 3.2. On behalf of the claimants, one Gandabhai Bharwad came to be examined on oath at Exh. 25. The original claimants heavily relied upon the previous judgment and award passed by the Reference Court passed in LAR No. 122 of 2001 (Exh. 27) and the previous judgment and award passed by the learned Reference Court in LAR No. 375 of 1994 (Exh. 47). 3.3. On behalf of the original opponents one Vinodkumar Surendra Rao executive of acquiring body was examined at Exh. 39. 3.4. That considering the previous judgment and award passed by the Reference Court in LAR No. 122 of 2001 as comparable as the same was with respect to the lands acquired of very village and relying upon the said judgment and award, by impugned judgment and award the learned Reference Court has enhanced the amount of compensation and has awarded compensation at Rs. 120 per sq. mtr with all other statutory benefits which may be available under the Act. 3.5. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Reference Court determining and awarding the compensation for the lands acquired at Rs. 120 per sq. mtr, both acquiring body as well as original claimants have preferred present First Appeals. 4. Ms. Minoo Shah, learned advocate has appeared on behalf of acquiring body and Shri Ankur Oza, learned advocate has appeared on behalf of the original claimants. 5. Ms. Shah, learned advocate for the acquiring body has vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Judge has erred in following decision in LAR No. 122 of 2001. It is submitted that the learned Judge has not given any specific finding and/or has not assigned any cogent reasons why the award passed in LAR No. 122 of 2001 can be said to be comparable. No other submissions have been made. 6. On the other hand, Shri Ankur Oza, learned advocate for the original claimants have vehemently submitted that the learned Reference Court has materially erred in not awarding compensation considering its previous judgment and award passed in LAR No. 375 of 1994. No other submissions have been made. 6. On the other hand, Shri Ankur Oza, learned advocate for the original claimants have vehemently submitted that the learned Reference Court has materially erred in not awarding compensation considering its previous judgment and award passed in LAR No. 375 of 1994. It is submitted that in LAR No. 122 of 2001, the lands situated at village Bareja were acquired which is just 5 k.m. away from the acquired lands and in that case, the Reference Court awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 120/- per sq. mtr. It is submitted that therefore, the learned Reference Court ought to have awarded the compensation relying upon its previous judgment and award passed in LAR No. 375 of 1994 (Exh. 46) which was subsequently partly confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in First Appeal No. 1439 of 1999. 6.1. It is further submitted by Shri Oza, learned advocate for the original claimants that even while awarding compensation at the rate of Rs. 120/- per sq. mtrs relying upon its previous judgment and award passed in LAR No. 122 of 2001, the learned Reference Court has not properly appreciated the fact that so far as acquired lands are concerned, they are on the national highway and lands acquired in the aforesaid LAR were in the interior part of the village. 6.2. He has also requested to clarify that original claimants shall be entitled to 30% solatium under Section 23(2) of the Act on the entire amount of compensation. It is submitted that the learned Reference Court has materially erred in granting solatium under Section 23(2) of the Act only on the additional amount determined in the Reference. 6.3. Shri Oza, learned advocate for the original claimants has further submitted that as such the acquiring body has only acquired admeasuring 55 Are and 33 gunthas of lands, the though the proposed acquisition was for the lessor area i.e. 46 Are and 13 gunthas. It is submitted that therefore, the original claimants shall be entitled to compensation with respect to actual acquired lands i.e. 55 Are and 33 gunthas. Making above submission, it is requested to allow the First Appeal No. 1448 of 2016 preferred by the original claimants and consequently to dismiss the appeal preferred by the acquiring body. 7. Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties at length. Making above submission, it is requested to allow the First Appeal No. 1448 of 2016 preferred by the original claimants and consequently to dismiss the appeal preferred by the acquiring body. 7. Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties at length. At the outset, it is required to be noted that while passing impugned judgment and award, the learned Reference Court has relied upon its previous judgment and award in LAR No. 122 of 2001. It is not in dispute that in LAR No. 122 of 2001, the lands acquired were of the very village. It is also required to be noted that as such the claimants themselves had relied upon the judgment and award passed in LAR No. 122 of 2001. It was the case on behalf of the original claimants before the learned Reference Court that the award declared in LAR No. 122 of 2001 be considered as comparable and they requested to award compensation considering the judgment and award passed in LAR No. 122 of 2001. Under the circumstances, accept the above, the case on behalf of the original claimants when the learned Reference Court has awarded compensation accordingly, thereafter it would not be open for the appellants-original claimants to submit contrary and/or thereafter it will not be open for the original claimants to make a grievance that the learned Reference Court has materially erred in relying upon the judgment and award passed in LAR No. 122 of 2001 which is with respect to lands acquired of very village. Under the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the learned Reference Court has not committed any error in awarding compensation relying upon its previous judgment and award passed in LAR No. 122 of 2001. 8. Now, so far as submission on behalf of the original claimants that the learned Reference Court has materially erred in not relying upon its previous judgment and award passed in LAR No. 375 of 1994 is concerned, it is required to be noted that as such the lands acquired in the said Reference was far away from the acquired lands (distance of 5 km) and that the village Bareja is a Taluka Town and the same is not comparable at all with respect to lands acquired in question. Even otherwise, there is a time gap of 7 years between two Section 4 Notification. Even otherwise, there is a time gap of 7 years between two Section 4 Notification. Under the circumstances, the judgment and award passed in LAR No. 375 of 1994 cannot be said to be comparable vis-a-vis lands acquired and more particularly, in the present case there is judgment and award passed by the learned Reference Court in LAR No. 122 of 2001 with respect to lands acquired of very village and Section 4 of the Notification is in the proximity. 8.1. Now, so far as the grievance made by the original claimants that the acquiring body has acquired more area of land is concerned, it is required to be noted that the aforesaid cannot be considered in the present appeal as the same was not taken in the Reference Court. 9. At the outset, it is required to be noted that Section 4 Notification is with respect to 46 Are and 13 gunthas of lands and even the award was declared in the year 2002 for the aforesaid area. Therefore, if at all original claimants have any grievance with respect to excess acquisition of land, in that case, the remedy lies elsewhere. 9.1. Now, so far as clarification sought that the claimants shall be entitled to 30% solatium from the entire amount of compensation and not on the enhance amount of compensation by the learned Reference Court is concerned, it is required to be noted that while declaring the award under Section 11 of the Act the Special Land Acquisition Officer is awarding solatium under Section 23A of the Act. However, if the same is not allowed, in that case, the clarification is required. 10. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, both these appeals fail and same deserve to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed. However, while dismissing the appeal preferred by the original claimants, it is observed that the original claimants shall be entitled to 30% solatium under Section 23(2) of the Act on the entire amount of compensation and not on the enhanced amount of compensation by the learned Reference Court. Therefore, it is observed that if the Land Acquisition Officer has not awarded 30% solatium while passing the award, in that case, the original claimants shall be entitled to 30% solatium under Section 23(2) of the Act as the on the entire amount of compensation. With this, both the appeals dismissed. Therefore, it is observed that if the Land Acquisition Officer has not awarded 30% solatium while passing the award, in that case, the original claimants shall be entitled to 30% solatium under Section 23(2) of the Act as the on the entire amount of compensation. With this, both the appeals dismissed. No costs.