JUDGMENT : Rajesh H. Shukla, J. 1. The present group of First Appeals has been filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the 'the Act') read with Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 being aggrieved with the impugned judgment and award passed by the Additional District Judge, Bharuch (hereinafter referred to as 'the Reference Court') in respective Land Acquisition References (main LAR No. 868/1990) dated 10.07.2009 on the grounds stated in these appeals. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the lands of the original claimants situated at Village : Umarwada, Taluka : Ankleshwar, District : Bharuch have been acquired by the Special Land Acquisition Officer at the instance of GIDC (acquiring body). The notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act were published on 06.01.1983 and 30.01.1986 respectively. The Special Land Acquisition Officer passed his award under Section 9 of the Act on 10.05.1988 of Rs. 220/- per ARE for the acquired land. Against which, the original claimants made reference before the Reference Court under Section 18 of the Act. The Reference Court on the basis of the material and evidence and after hearing learned advocates appearing for the respective parties granted additional compensation of Rs. 900 per ARE together with solatium under Section 23(2) of the Act as stated in detail in the judgment. 3. Therefore, the present First Appeals have been preferred challenging the said award by the Reference Court on the grounds stated in the memo of appeal. It is contended that enhancement of the compensation by the Reference Court cannot be said to be just and proper and it does not reflect the correct market value of the land acquired. It is also contended that the Reference Court has committed an error in awarding the additional compensation at the rate of Rs. 900/- per ARE and failed to consider relevant consideration as regards the location of the land under the acquisition. It is contended that the Reference Court has failed to apply relevant criteria like location of the land, area and the state of development, kind of surrounding area, potentiality of further development and proximity from urban area. It is contended that the land under acquisition are situated at Village : Umarwada, whereas Exh. It is contended that the Reference Court has failed to apply relevant criteria like location of the land, area and the state of development, kind of surrounding area, potentiality of further development and proximity from urban area. It is contended that the land under acquisition are situated at Village : Umarwada, whereas Exh. 18, judgment and award relied upon is in respect of the land situated at Village : Piraman and same are not comparable. It is contended that the distance between Village : Umarwada and Village : Piraman is about 5 Kms. and more and merely because the simada (boundary) of Village : Piraman and Umarwada is common, it could not have been followed without applying relevant criteria. 4. Heard learned advocate, Shri R.D. Dave for the appellant and learned advocate, Shri M.M. Saiyed for the respondents-original claimants. 5. Learned advocate, Shri Dave referred to the papers and judgment of the Reference Court. He pointedly referred to the observations made in Para Nos. 11 and 12 of the judgment and award of the Reference Court. Learned advocate, Shri Dave submitted that the reliance is placed on Village : Piraman observing that the boundary of Village : Umarwada and Village : Piraman are adjoining and, therefore, is proceeded to make assessment relying upon the judgment of the Reference Court, which was modified by the High Court in First Appeal Nos. 927 to 1033 of 1990 reducing the compensation at the rate of Rs. 790/- per ARE. He, therefore, submitted that even in case of Village : Piraman, the High Court had reduced the compensation which suggests that the compensation award are on higher side. Learned advocate, Shri Dave also submitted that the land under the acquisition of Village : Umarwada is not comparable to Village : Piraman. For that purpose, he referred to the map and tried to submit that topography as well as distance of the land under the acquisition of Village : Umarwada cannot be said to be close proximity of developed area of Ankleshwar. He, therefore, submitted that the amount awarded by the Reference Court is much higher without considering the relevant criteria of potentiality, vicinity of the urban developed area and/or industrialization etc. Learned advocate, Shri Dave also submitted that in a judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench in First Appeal Nos. He, therefore, submitted that the amount awarded by the Reference Court is much higher without considering the relevant criteria of potentiality, vicinity of the urban developed area and/or industrialization etc. Learned advocate, Shri Dave also submitted that in a judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench in First Appeal Nos. 927 to 1033 of 1990 in case of acquisition of land of Village : Piraman, it has not been appreciated that it was highly developed area and, therefore, value is fixed accordingly. Learned advocate, Shri Dave strenuously submitted that in the present case, the land is not so situated with proximity to the developed area suggesting any potential development or other advantage. Learned advocate, Shri Dave also referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench in First Appeal Nos. 927 to 1033 of 1990 and submitted that while considering the market value at higher rate, relevant criteria normally are the potential development and proximity to the developed area. He submitted that the land in the present case is not so situated. He submitted that in fact, reliance on the judgment of the High Court in another case could not have been made without verification qua situation. 6. Learned advocate, Shri Saiyed for the respondents-claimants has referred to the papers as well as the judgment of the Reference Court and also the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench of the High Court in First Appeal Nos. 927 to 1033 of 1990 regarding the acquisition of the land of Village : Piraman. He submitted that the land is situated near highway, which is going from Ankleshwar to Rajpipla and also Ankleshwar Railway Station, which is 3 Kms. away. He submitted that similarly, the acquisition of the land in that case of Village : Piraman is adjacent to the boundary of the present land of Village : Umarwada. He, therefore, submitted that there they are comparable and it cannot be said that the land so adjacent to other village, is not reliable. He submitted that the acquisition of the land is made for the same purpose of GIDC in both cases and as both villages are adjacent and revenue boundaries are nearby, the Reference Court has made award at the rate of Rs. 900/-, which has been reduced by the Hon'ble Division Bench of the High Court from Rs. 900/- per ARE to Rs. 790/- per ARE. 900/-, which has been reduced by the Hon'ble Division Bench of the High Court from Rs. 900/- per ARE to Rs. 790/- per ARE. Therefore, learned advocate, Shri Saiyed submitted that on the contrary, there is reduction but as two lands are similarly situated, same judgment may be followed and he has no objection if the award is modified on the same line as in case of Village : Piraman. Learned advocate, Shri Saiyed submitted that the High Court has also considered as to when the land can be said to be adjacent to each other. He submitted that if two lands are having distance of 2-3 Kms. then, it is adjacent to other village. In support of this contention, he has referred to and relied upon the judgment of the High Court in case of General Manager, ONGC Ltd. v. Chamanji Kuberji & Ors., reported in 2013 (4) GLR 2769. Learned advocate, Shri Saiyed, therefore, again referred to the papers and submitted that reliance which is sought to be placed by learned advocate, Shri Dave for the appellant qua acquisition of land for ONGC would not have any application in the present case. He submitted that Reference Court has rightly considered that though village is the same in case of acquisition by ONGC as well as in the present case by the appellant, situation is different. He submitted that the land in case of acquisition for ONGC was interior and, therefore, the award has been less. He submitted that as against that, reliance placed by the Reference Court for the comparable land of Ankleshwar acquired for the same purpose of GIDC is just and property inasmuch as both the lands are similarly situated acquired for the same purpose, which are adjacent to each other near the highway or the developed area. Learned advocate, Shri Saiyed, therefore, submitted that the Reference Court has considered geographical situation for the purpose of arriving at the valuation of the land and, therefore, the present Appeals may not be entertained or allowed. He further submitted that though the award of the Reference is to the tune of Rs. 900/- per ARE, same may be modified on the same line as in case of acquisition of the land of Village : Piraman referred to in First Appeal Nos. 927 to 1033 of 1990 by the Hon'ble Division Bench reducing the compensation to Rs. He further submitted that though the award of the Reference is to the tune of Rs. 900/- per ARE, same may be modified on the same line as in case of acquisition of the land of Village : Piraman referred to in First Appeal Nos. 927 to 1033 of 1990 by the Hon'ble Division Bench reducing the compensation to Rs. 790/- per ARE. He has also referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Mahesh Dattatray Thirthkar v. State of Maharashtra, reported AIR 2009 SC 2238 and submitted that while deciding the market value of the acquired property in proximity to developed area of Ankleshwar, the value of the land could be assessed on the same footing as that of Village : Piraman, which has also been considered by the Hon'ble Division Bench of the High Court in First Appeal Nos. 927 to 1033 of 1990. 7. In view of these rival submissions, it is required to be considered whether the present First Appeals deserves consideration. 8. As could be seen from the background of the facts, which have been referred to by both sides at length and particularly the discussion by the Reference Court, it is evident that the land under acquisition of Village : Umarwada is for the same purpose of GIDC, Ankleshwar. The situation and the geographical location of the land under acquisition of Village : Umarwada also referred in the map by both sides. Learned advocate, Shri Dave had tried to emphasis that the land in the present acquisition is not so similarly situated and comparable to the land of Village : Piraman trying to show the distance. On the other hand, learned advocate, Shri Saiyed has emphasized that the acquisition is for the same purpose of GIDC, Ankleshwar, which would imply that they are similarly situated and they are nearby and in fact, the revenue boundaries are adjacent to each other. Further map which has been referred to and distance which has been pointed out, also suggests that there may be some discrepancy or differences but the moot question, which would be relevant is whether the land under acquisition is in near proximity of the developed area of Ankleshwar and aspect of potential development. It is required to be stated that in such situation, when the land is agricultural land, normally the yield or the nature of crop etc. is relevant. It is required to be stated that in such situation, when the land is agricultural land, normally the yield or the nature of crop etc. is relevant. However when the land is closed to the urban area, potential development is one of the major criteria for arriving at market value. This may also have to be considered based on proximity of the developed area, chance of development around the land like transport facility, other infrastructure in and around the village or the area where the land is acquired. Therefore the distance of the land under the acquisition of Village : Umarwada may be little more from Ankleshwar. However fact remains that though two villages i.e. Village : Umarwada and Piraman are adjacent, topographical and geographical situation may be different as there may be distance qua land of one village like Village : Umarwada from the developed area of Ankleshwar or may be at little distance from the land of Village : Piraman acquired for the GIDC. At the same time, the acquisition is for the same purpose of industrial development and the establishment of industrial estate, which would in turn imply that there has to be a better developments, infrastructure of road connectivity and there is no much differences between two villages. Therefore the situation of the land under acquisition qua other village may have some variation but it would be a guidelines for the purpose of valuation of the land. Therefore the submission that the acquisition of the land for ONGC of the same Village : Umarwada is not relied upon by the Reference Court and the Reference Court has committed an error in relying upon Village : Piraman, is misconceived. The land acquired of same Village : Umarwada for ONGC may be interior as it was suggested. On the other hand, land under acquisition of Village : Umarwada is for the same purpose of GIDC and as stated above, when the land of nearby Village : Piraman is also acquired for the same purpose, it would certainly give indication about the potential development. Further some variation and distance would not make much difference if the land is near proximity to developed area. Further some variation and distance would not make much difference if the land is near proximity to developed area. Therefore the Hon'ble Apex Court has in a judgment in case of Mahesh Dattatray Thirthkar v. State of Maharashtra, reported in AIR 2009 SC 2238 has observed, "Proximity to develop urbanized area needs to be necessarily considered, while deciding on the compensation to be paid for acquisition of land, on the basis of evidence available. Where there is evidence to show that acquired property is situated near Highway and the State has not given any evidence to rebut this contention, the Court cannot overlook the proximity of the acquired property to a developed area, and the High Court cannot set aside the order of the Reference Court merely on grounds of minor inconsistencies and technicalities. The compensation provision of the Act is in the nature of a welfare stipulation and thus the State Government must be just and fair to those whose land it acquires." 9. A useful reference can be made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Bhag Singh & Ors. v. Union Territory of Chandigarh, reported in AIR 1985 SC 1576 , wherein it has made observation with regard to the payment of fair compensation for the land acquired and the obligation of the State to pay such compensation. 10. In the facts of the case, as discussed hereinabove, judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench in First Appeal Nos. 927 to 1033 of 1990 has been referred to while considering the adequacy of the compensation in case of the acquisition of the land of Village : Piraman. The Hon'ble Division Bench after considering relevant aspect has reduced the compensation and modified to Rs. 790/- per Are. Learned advocate, Shri Saiyed has also stated that the judgment of the Reference Court may be modified and reduced on the same line following the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench. Thus in principle, it has been accepted that the High Court on appreciation of evidence modified and reduced the award of the Reference Court to Rs. 790/- per Are for Village : Piraman. Thus in principle, it has been accepted that the High Court on appreciation of evidence modified and reduced the award of the Reference Court to Rs. 790/- per Are for Village : Piraman. In the facts of the case, even if it is accepted for the sake of argument much emphasis by learned advocate, Shri Dave that Village : Piraman and the land under acquisition of Village : Umarwada are not identical or exactly similarly situated even then, as stated above it would serve as a guideline as the acquisition for the same purpose of GIDC estate suggesting potentiality with some development and infrastructure would justify. 11. The Hon'ble Division Bench in a judgment in First Appeal Nos. 927 to 1033 of 1990 while considering the submission has considered the potential development of Village : Piraman, distance from Ankleshwar and it has been observed that, "It is well settled legal principle that previous judgments and awards of the Reference Court, if they relate to similarly situated adjacent lands and have become final provide good guidance in determining the market value of the lands acquired subsequently. There is no doubt that, a judgment of a court in a land acquisition case determining the market value of a land in the vicinity of the acquired lands even though not inter parties, could be admitted in evidence either as an instance or one from which the market value of the acquired land could be deduced or inferred." 12. Further it has also been observed, "Vast lands of different villages surrounding towns of Bharuch and Ankleshwar were acquired by the Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation for establishment of industrial estate in this area." 13. It has also been observed, "Therefore, the Court can presume that, day by day, there was increase of price of lands of villages surrounding both the towns." 14. Therefore having regard to the submissions and considering the location, potential development as well as minor details pointed out by both sides, particularly, by learned advocate, Shri Dave pointing out as to how it is not identical with Piraman, the interest of justice would be served if the judgment and award of the Reference Court is modified on the same way as the Hon'ble Division Bench confining it to Rs. 700/-. 15. In the circumstances, the present First Appeal stand allowed partly. 700/-. 15. In the circumstances, the present First Appeal stand allowed partly. The impugned judgment and award of the Reference Court is hereby modified and the compensation awarded by the Reference Court is reduced to Rs. 700/- instead of Rs. 900/-. Decree to be drawn accordingly.