JUDGMENT : 1. This batch of Appeals is directed against the judgment and award passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Surendranagar, dated 9th January 2018 in the Land Reference Case No.16 of 2003 and allied matters. The court below passed an identical judgment and award in each of the Land Reference Cases (LRC) bearing Nos.16 of 2003 to 46 of 2003. The judgment of the reference court, though delivered individually in each of the Land Reference Cases, yet parawise it is identical except the change in the names of the claimants. 2. This batch of Appeals is being decided by this common judgment and order. 3. The lands of village Dharmendragadh, Taluka Muli, District Surendranagar, were acquired by the respondents for the Sabury Irrigation Scheme. The possession of the acquired lands was taken over on 10th August 1996 by the respondents. The preliminary notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act') was published on 24th August 1999 and the notification under Section 6 of the Act was published on 19th December 2000. The respondent no.1 - Land Acquisition Officer declared his award on 23rd July 2000 and awarded Rs.1=60 per sq.meter for the non-irrigated land and Rs.2=40 per sq. meter for the irrigated land towards the compensation. 4. Being dissatisfied with the award of the Land Acquisition Officer, the claimants sought references under Section 18 of the Act and the same were forwarded to the District Court, Surendranagar. All the references were registered and numbered as the Land Reference Cases Nos.16 of 2003 to 46 of 2003. The claimants in the reference, claimed compensation at the rate of Rs.100=00 to Rs.110=00 per sq.meter. The Principal Senior Civil Judge, Surendranagar, by his judgment and award dated 9th January 2018, has awarded additional compensation at the rate of Rs.7=00 per sq.meter. 5. Being dissatisfied with the judgment and award, the appellants have come up with their respective appeals. 6. To prove the just, fair and reasonable market value of their acquired lands, the appellants/claimants have led common evidence separately in all the reference cases. The claimants have examined witness, viz. Kuvarji Thobhan, at Exh.36, who is the land holder of the Land Reference Case No.16 of 2003. This witness has deposed in his evidence that his land was acquired for the Saburi Irrigation Scheme along with the land of the other farmers of his village. The claimants have examined witness, viz. Kuvarji Thobhan, at Exh.36, who is the land holder of the Land Reference Case No.16 of 2003. This witness has deposed in his evidence that his land was acquired for the Saburi Irrigation Scheme along with the land of the other farmers of his village. The possession of their acquired lands were taken over on and around 10th August 1996 by the respondents. That the lands acquired of all the agriculturists are adjoining to each other having irrigation facility through well. The lands are of the same quality, fertility and of similar nature. That the farmers of the village were taking three crops in a year, viz. cotton, groundnut and til. The farmers were used to sell their agriculture produce at the Botad Marketing Yard and the witness has produced the price list of the Botad Marketing Yard for the year 1996-97 at Exh.28. That no Revenue Talati or Panchayat Mantri had ever come to make note of the standing crops on the field of the farmers in their presence in the revenue record. The witness has deposed that after deducting 50% expense, their net agriculture income was Rs.20,000=00 to Rs.25,000=00 per vigha per year in the relevant year. The witness has also deposed that the village has the facilities of road, water, electricity, telephone, school, diamond polishing units, etc. since 1999. That the Ahmedabad-Rajkot National Highway, Surendranagar-Muli State Highway and Ahmedabad- Surendranagar-Rajkot Broad-gauge Railway Line pass nearby their village. In short, the witness has deposed that their village is fast developing day-by-day. The claimants/appellants have thus adduced evidence on the basis of the yield of their acquired lands. In the cross-examination by the respondents, the witness has, inter alia, stated that there may be some difference in the quality of lands. Agriculture produce would depend on the farmer. Cotton produce may be affected due to atmosphere and other factors. That the farmers do not get proper price of the agriculture produce. That the village is 3 kms. away from the Muli Highway. That there is no other dam except the Saburi Dam in the village. There is no big industry in the village. That he does not have any evidence to show that the lands are irrigated and that he has not produced evidence to show sale of agriculture produce in the market yard. away from the Muli Highway. That there is no other dam except the Saburi Dam in the village. There is no big industry in the village. That he does not have any evidence to show that the lands are irrigated and that he has not produced evidence to show sale of agriculture produce in the market yard. The witness has lastly stated in his cross-examination that he has not kept accounts in writing of the agriculture income and expenditure. 7. One another witness who has been examined by the claimants is one Patel Harjivan Nathubhai (Exh.39). This witness has been examined to prove the sale instance. As per the deposition of this witness, he stated that he had purchased Gamtal land of the same village Dharmendragadh in an auction held by the Gram Panchayat. Since his bid was accepted, the sale deed was exexuted by the Sarpanch, viz. Natubhai Jhaveri, of the village and the same was registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Muli, at Serial No.1722 on 18th August 1992. The area of the land under the sale deed was 196.49 sq.meter which was sold for Rs.17,089=75. Therefore, the price per sq.meter of the said land was Rs.86=97 as on 18th August 1992. The sale instance is provided and produced on record at Exh.43. In the cross-examination of the witness, he has stated that he was not aware of the 'jantri' price of the village when he purchased the land in auction and the price of the sale deed may be more than the prevailing 'jantri'. That the base price of the land was fixed at Rs.50=00 per sq.meter in auction. That he was unable to produce anything on record to show that the base price of the land was fixed at Rs.50=00 per sq.meter by the Gram Panchayat. That his bid was the highest in the auction and he purchased the land in auction without verifying the value of the land in the Government record. 8. On behalf of the respondents, one Mahendrabhai Kantilal Patel, Deputy Collector, came to be examined at Exh.46. This witness has deposed about the dates of the notifications published under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act and the date of declaration of the award by his predecessor-in-office. 8. On behalf of the respondents, one Mahendrabhai Kantilal Patel, Deputy Collector, came to be examined at Exh.46. This witness has deposed about the dates of the notifications published under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act and the date of declaration of the award by his predecessor-in-office. He has deposed that the price awarded under the award passed by his predecessor is just and proper and the references may be dismissed with costs. This witness has not been cross-examined on behalf of the claimants but was cross-examined by the respondent no.2. The witness has stated that at the time of the acquisition of the land, the population of the village was 509 and the award was published following the guidelines of the Government. 9. The respondents have examined the Executive Engineer at Exh.53. This witness has deposed more or less on the same line as that of the Deputy Collector (Exh.46). This witness has further stated that the acquired lands are situated in the sim of the village. The village is at a distance of 13 kms. from Muli and the nearest railway station is Rampada, which is at a distance of 6 kms. That the claimants are paid 30% solatium and they are compensated as per the market value. Hence, the reference may be dismissed. This witness has also not been cross-examined on behalf of the claimants, but the respondent no.1 has cross-examined him. Nothing new has been stated by this witness during his cross-examination, but has reiterated the same facts as deposed by the Deputy Collector (Exh.46). 10. Based on the above evidence, the reference court, by its impugned judgment and award dated 9th January 2018, awarded additional compensation at the rate of Rs.7=00 per sq.meter with all other statutory benefits like interest, solatium, etc. as per Sections 23, 23(1-A), 23(2) and 28 of the Act. 11. Mr.Amin, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, submitted that the appellants/claimants have adduced two types of evidence to prove the value of their land; (i) evidence of the witness at Exh.36 has proved the net agriculture income per vigha per year from the acquired lands and (ii) evidence of the witness at Exh.39 has proved the sale deed Exh.43, whereby the land of the same village was purchased by him in an auction sale. According to Mr.Amin, if either of the evidence produced by the appellants is considered, the value of their acquired lands in any case shall not be less than Rs.70=00 per sq.meter. Mr.Amin further contended that indisputably the possession of the lands was taken over on 10th August 1996 while the notification under Section 4 was published on 24th August 1999. The appellants are, therefore, entitled to receive the rental compensation/damages for a period of 3 years. It is submitted by Mr.Amin that the reference court has committed an error in directing deduction of court fees from the compensation amount and that may be set-aside. 12. Mr.Amin, in support of his submissions, has placed reliance on the following decisions : (i) Jasarvinder Singh and others v. Land Acquisition Tribunal and others, (2012)12 SCC 373 ; (ii) H.P.Housing Board v. Bharat S.Negi and others, (2004)2 SCC 184 ; (ii) Thakarsibhai Devjibhai and others v. Executive Engineer and another, (2001)9 SCC 584 ; (iv) R.Saragapani (Dead) LRs. and others v. Special Tahsildar Karur-Dindigul Broadguage Line and others, (2011)14 SCC 177 ; and (v) First Appeal Nos.1213 to 1241 of 2016, decided on 20th August 2018. 13. Per contra, Mr.Patel, the learned AGP appearing for the respondent-State, has submitted that as per the evidence of the appellants/claimants witness at Exh.39, the base price in the auction sale was fixed at Rs.50=00 per sq.meter. Applying the necessary deduction on the count of (i) smallness of the area of the land under Exh.43 vis-a-vis the area acquired and (ii) the land being of Gamtal, the price/value of the acquired lands would be less than Rs.50=00. 14. Mr.Patel, the learned AGP, in support of his submissions, has placed reliance on the following decisions : (i) Executive Engineer, Karnataka Housing Board v. Land Acquisition Officer, Gadag and others, AIR 2011 SC 781 and (ii) State of Gujarat v. Amaji Mohanji Thakore, (2010)3 GLH 447 . 15. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having considered the materials on record, the only question that falls for my consideration is, whether the appellants are entitled to the reliefs prayed for in their respective Appeals. 16. For the purpose of determining and awarding appropriate compensation, the court is expected to ascertain the market value of the land on the date of the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act. 16. For the purpose of determining and awarding appropriate compensation, the court is expected to ascertain the market value of the land on the date of the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act. The methods adopted for the purpose of determining the valuation are : (1) opinion of experts, (2) the price paid within a reasonable time in various bonafide transactions of purchase and sale of the lands acquired or of the lands adjacent to those acquired and possessing similar features and advantages, and (3) a number of years purchase of the actual or immediately prospective profits of the lands acquired. 17. The Supreme Court has cautioned that normally the method of capitalizing the actual or immediately prospective profits or the rent of a number of years purchase should not be resorted to if there is evidence of comparable sales or other evidence for computation of the market value. It is also by now well-settled that for every year 10% rise by way of appreciation/escalation in price is to be considered and if any agricultural land is to be converted for non-agricultural purpose, there will be about 25% deduction in the area itself and further the conversion charges of agricultural land will have to be paid for non-agricultural use and such expenses for conversion would also be roughly 5%, by way of a burden upon the agricultural land. In short, the agricultural land shall be less by 30% as against the price of the non-agricultural land. Lastly, when sale instance is of a smaller area vis-a-vis large area under acquisition, there shall be 1/3 deduction towards development cost. 18. In the present case, the following facts are not in dispute : (i) Possession of the lands was taken in advance on 10th August 1996; (ii) Notification under Section 4 was published on 24th August 1999. (iii) Sale-deed Exh.43 is dated 18th August 1992; and (iv) Net agricultural income assessed by the reference court being Rs.12,500=00 is not challenged by any party. 19. It is submitted on behalf of the appellants that on the basis of the capitalizing method of net income, the market value of the land would be Rs.78=00 per sq.meter. According to them, the net agricultural income is assessed by the reference court at the rate of Rs.12,500=00 per vigha per year, which has not been challenged by anyone. 19. It is submitted on behalf of the appellants that on the basis of the capitalizing method of net income, the market value of the land would be Rs.78=00 per sq.meter. According to them, the net agricultural income is assessed by the reference court at the rate of Rs.12,500=00 per vigha per year, which has not been challenged by anyone. To arrive at the price per sq.meter, 12500 is to be divided by 1600 (one vigha is equal to 1600 sq.meter). The amount would be Rs.7=81. When the multiplier of 10 is applied, the price per sq.meter would be Rs.78=00. (See Indian Oil Corporation, Siddhpur v. Patel Khushalbhai Joitram and another, (2002)1 GLH 423) However, as noted above, the Supreme Court has cautioned that normally the method of capitalizing the actual or immediately prospective profits or the rent of a number of years purchase should not be resorted to if there is evidence of comparable sales or other evidence for computation of the market value. 20. In the case on hand, the appellants/claimants have produced and proved the sale-deed Exh.43 of the same village wherein the land was purchased in an auction. Thus, there is evidence of comparable sale for computation of the market value available on record and, therefore, the assessment of the market value of the acquired land cannot be resorted to on the basis of capitalization of income method as per the settled law. The contention of Mr.Amin that the appellants are entitled to receive Rs.78=00 per sq.meter on the basis of the net agricultural income cannot be accepted and, hence rejected. 21. The only other evidence available on record is the sale deed Exh.43 as the respondents have not produced any evidence. It is proved that the land of the same village was purchased at the rate of Rs.87=00 per sq.meter in an auction under Exh.43. Mr.Patel, the learned AGP, has assailed this evidence on the ground that the land purchased under Exh.43 was of Gamtal while the acquired lands are agricultural lands. Moreover, Exh.43 is of a small area vis-a-vis the large area of the acquired lands. Therefore, the base price of Rs.50=00 as fixed in an auction should be considered and thereafter an appropriate deduction should be made. Mr.Patel has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Executive Engineer, Karnatake Housing Board (supra). Moreover, Exh.43 is of a small area vis-a-vis the large area of the acquired lands. Therefore, the base price of Rs.50=00 as fixed in an auction should be considered and thereafter an appropriate deduction should be made. Mr.Patel has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Executive Engineer, Karnatake Housing Board (supra). On the other hand, Mr.Amin has submitted that in the same decision relied upon by the learned AGP, the Supreme Court has observed as under : "7. But where an open auction sale is the only comparable sale transaction available (on account of proximity in situation and proximity in time to the acquired land), the court may have to, with caution, rely upon the price disclosed by such auction sales, by providing an appropriate deduction or cut to off-set the competitive-hike in value. In this case, the Reference Court and High Court, after referring to the evidence relating to other sale transactions, found them to be inapplicable as they related to far away properties. Therefore we are left with only the auction sale transactions. On the facts and circumstances, we are of the view that a deduction or cut of 20% in the auction price disclosed by the relied upon auction transaction towards the factor of 'competitive -price hike' would enable us to arrive at the fair market price. 8. There is clear evidence that the plot sold under Ex. P-2 was very near to the acquired lands whereas there is no such specific evidence in regard to the proximity of the plot sold under Ex.P19, though that plot was also in the vicinity..." 22. Mr.Amin thus submitted that even in the decision relied upon by the respondent-State, the Supreme Court ultimately accepted the price fetched in an auction sale and made 20% deduction therefrom as no other sale instance was available. In the same manner, according to Mr.Amin except Exh.43 there is no other sale instance on record. Moreover, it is of the same village having proximity of situation. It is, therefore, submitted by him that if 20% is deducted from the auction sale price of Rs.87=00 of Exh.43, the appellants are entitled to Rs.69=60 (Rs.87=00 less Rs.17=40) rounded off to Rs.70=00 per sq.meter. 23. Moreover, it is of the same village having proximity of situation. It is, therefore, submitted by him that if 20% is deducted from the auction sale price of Rs.87=00 of Exh.43, the appellants are entitled to Rs.69=60 (Rs.87=00 less Rs.17=40) rounded off to Rs.70=00 per sq.meter. 23. A Division Bench of this Court, in the case of Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Limited v. Patel Haribhai Manilal (First Appeal Nos.2832 of 2006 to 2843 of 2006, decided on 9th July 2007), has observed as under : "It is a settled principle of law that where the acquired lands are agricultural lands, their valuation would differ to a considerable extent from the lands which are nonagricultural lands and that where a large area of land is subject matter of acquisition, certain deductions will have to be made if the market price of the acquired lands has to be determined on the basis of rate fixed for small plots. Moreover, some amount will have to be deducted towards development charges. After making deductions on the above counts, the market value of the lands acquired will have to be determined. Keeping the above principles in mind, this Court is of the opinion that interest of justice would be served if 40% from the market price of the land which was subject matter of sale vide Ex.13 as on December 4, 1994, is deducted under the heads of smallness of plot, nonagricultural land and development charges collectively while determining the market value of the lands acquired in the instant cases. The market value of the land granted vide order dated December 4, 1994, has been determined at Rs. 65/- per sq.mt. After deducting 40% from this amount, the amount that comes is Rs. 39/- per sq.mt. The said sale took place vide order dated December 4, 1994, whereas the notification under Section 4 of the Act for the acquisition of lands of village Modhera was published on July 27, 1995. Therefore, there is a gap of about six months between the two. If 5% rise in price of land is given, the amount comes to Rs. 41/- per sq.mt. which is the total amount of compensation to which the claimants are entitled. Thus, this Court is of the opinion that the claimants would be entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs. 41/- per sq.mt. and not at the rate of Rs. 54.57 ps. 41/- per sq.mt. which is the total amount of compensation to which the claimants are entitled. Thus, this Court is of the opinion that the claimants would be entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs. 41/- per sq.mt. and not at the rate of Rs. 54.57 ps. per sq.mt. as held by the Reference Court." 24. I am of the view that having regard to the Division Bench decision of this Court referred to above, the interest of justice would be served if 40% is deducted from the market price of the land, which was the subject matter of sale vide Exh.43 under the heads of smallness of plot, non-agricultural land and development charges collectively while determining the market value of the lands acquired in the instant cases. Deducting 40% from Rs.87=00, the price of the acquired lands would be Rs.52=22. This market value of the acquired lands is without adding 10% rise/escalation per year for the difference of 7 years between the date of auction sale, i.e. 18th August 1992, and the date of publication of Section 4 notification, i.e. 24th August 1999. As per the settled law discussed above, to which both the parties agree, 10% rise/escalation in price per year is an accepted proposition of law. When 10% of Rs.52=22, i.e. 5=22 is added for 7 years, it would come to Rs.36=55. Total of Rs.52=22 and Rs.36=55 would be Rs.88=77 rounded off to Rs.89=00. This, in my view, should be the market value of the acquired lands. 25. However, both the witnesses examined on behalf of the claimants have admitted in their cross-examination that their village is at a distance of 3 kms. from the Muli Highway. That there is no railway station nearby and there is no big industry in their village. Shri Mahendrabhai Kantilal Patel, Deputy Collector, is examined at Exh.46 by the respondents. His examination-inchief has gone uncontroverted as there is no cross-examination by the claimants. This witness has deposed that the village is at a distance of 13 kms. from the Taluka centre. That the nearest railway station is Ramkharda, which is at a distance of 6 kms. from the village. According to the witness, there is no industry in the village and there has been no development in the village. If the evidence of this witness, which remained uncontroverted, is appreciated, then there is no evidence of development in the village. That the nearest railway station is Ramkharda, which is at a distance of 6 kms. from the village. According to the witness, there is no industry in the village and there has been no development in the village. If the evidence of this witness, which remained uncontroverted, is appreciated, then there is no evidence of development in the village. Consequently, there may not be rise/escalation in the price of the lands of the village and the principle of 10% rise/increase every year may not apply. 26. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered view that the interest of justice would be served if the appellants/claimants are awarded total compensation at the rate of Rs.52=00 per sq.meter for their acquired lands. The judgment and award passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Surendranagar, dated 9th January 2018 in the Land Reference Cases Nos.16 of 2003 to 46 of 2003, is modified accordingly. 27. The reference court has committed an error in directing to deduct the requisite court fees from the amount of compensation. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Kashi Ram Namdeo Zambro v. State of Maharashtra, reported in (1996)1 SCC 289 , no court fees is leviable on the reference application filed under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. All the references were filed in the year 2001 by the claimants. The direction to deduct court fees as ordered by the reference court in its judgment and award dated 9th January 2018 passed in the Land Reference Cases Nos.16 of 2003 to 46 of 2003 is hereby set-aside. 28. Admittedly, the possession of the acquired lands was taken over on 10th August 1996, i.e. prior to Section 4 notification was published on 24th August 1999. The claimants/appellants are thus entitled to receive rental/damages at the rate of 15% from 10th August 1996, i.e. the date of possession, to 24th August 1999, i.e. the date of Section 4 notification, in view of the judgment of this Court passed in the First Appeal Nos.1213 of 2016 to 1241 of 2016. The appellants/claimants thereafter shall be entitled to 9% interest for the first year from the date of Section 4 notification published under the Act and then at the rate of 15% per year till the amount is deposited with the reference court. 29. The appellants/claimants thereafter shall be entitled to 9% interest for the first year from the date of Section 4 notification published under the Act and then at the rate of 15% per year till the amount is deposited with the reference court. 29. The statutory interest and benefits as awarded by the reference court shall remain undisturbed. 30. Since the appellants/claimants came to be dispossessed on 10th August 1996 and till this date they have not received the compensation even at the rate of Rs.1=60 per sq.meter, the respondents are directed to deposit the entire amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court with interest and all other statutory benefits within a period of three months from today. All the Appeals are disposed of in the above terms.