JUDGMENT : 1. The present set of appeals filed by the appellant GSRTC – original opponent No.2 arises out of the common award dated 16.11.1992 passed by the 2nd Joint District Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) (hereinafter referred to as "the Reference Court”) in Land Acquisition Reference Case Nos.337 to 343 of 1986, whereby the Reference Court has held that the respondents – claimants shall be entitled to recover additional compensation at the rate of Rs.53/- per sq. mtrs., along with interest and solatium as per Section 23(1A) and Section 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act”). 2. The lands in question situated at Saijpur Bogha were sought to be acquired by the Government at the instance of the appellant GSRTC by Notification published on 30.11.1980 under Section 4 of the said Act. A corrigendum was issued on 12.8.1982 and the Notification was published on 11.11.1983 under Section 6 of the said Act. The Special Land Acquisition Officer declared the award on 25.3.1985 determining the amount of compensation to be paid to the respondents – claimants at the rate of Rs.32/- sq. mtrs. The claimants being not satisfied with the said compensation had sought References under Section 18 of the said Act to the competent Court. The matters having been referred to the Reference Court, the cases were registered as the Land Acquisition Reference Case Nos.337 of 1986 to 343 of 1986. 3. The Reference Court after considering the oral as well as documentary evidence adduced by the parties held vide the impugned award that the respondents – claimants were entitled to the compensation at the rate of Rs.85/- per sq. mtrs. i.e. at the rate of Rs.53/- per sq. mtrs., as compensation in addition to the compensation awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer along with the interest and solatium as per the statutory entitlements. Being aggrieved by the said award, the present appeals have been filed by the appellant – original opponent No.2 under Section 54 of the said Act. 4. Learned Advocate Mr. G.M. Joshi for the appellant has vehemently submitted that the Reference Court has committed serious error in not properly appreciating the evidence on record and in not applying the correct principles governing the determination of the market value of the lands in question for the purpose of awarding compensation. 4. Learned Advocate Mr. G.M. Joshi for the appellant has vehemently submitted that the Reference Court has committed serious error in not properly appreciating the evidence on record and in not applying the correct principles governing the determination of the market value of the lands in question for the purpose of awarding compensation. According to him, the Reference Court on one hand having held that the market value of the sale instance as reflected in the judgment at Annexure-30 could not be relied upon, held on the other hand, that the said judgment has got better evidentiary value than the sale instances and could be looked into for the purpose of ascertaining the market value of the lands in question. Mr.Joshi also submitted that the Reference Court had committed an error in not relying upon the sale instances (exemplars) produced by the appellant, which were most appropriate and comparable with the lands in question. 5. The learned Advocate Mr.G.M. Amin for the respondents relying upon various decisions of the Supreme Court submitted that the Reference Court has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and awarded just compensation, which should not be interfered with. According to Mr.Amin, the burden of proving the true value of acquired property is on the State, after the respondents – claimants discharged the burden to prove that the award of compensation made by the Special Land Acquisition Officer was inadequate. He also submitted that the report of an expert for establishing the market value also could be relied upon by the Court as observed by the Supreme Court in case of Mahesh Dattatray Thirthkar Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2009) 11 SCC 141 . He also relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in case of Mehrawal Khewaji Trust (Registered), Faridkot and Ors. Vs. State of Punjab and Ors., reported in (2012) 5 SCC 432 to submit that when there are several exemplars with regard to similar lands, the highest of the exemplars should be considered and accepted by the Court, if the transaction is found to be bona fide transaction. Relying upon the map at Exh.52, Mr.Amin submitted that the lands in question were situated near the National Highway and had more potentiality of development, and therefore, the Reference Court after considering all the factors relevant for the purpose of awarding compensation has passed the award, which should not be interfered with. 6. Relying upon the map at Exh.52, Mr.Amin submitted that the lands in question were situated near the National Highway and had more potentiality of development, and therefore, the Reference Court after considering all the factors relevant for the purpose of awarding compensation has passed the award, which should not be interfered with. 6. In the instant case, the respondents – claimants had examined various witnesses, including an expert witness, and had produced number of documentary evidence. Similarly the appellant – opponent had also examined various witnesses, including an expert witness and had produced documentary evidence. It is pertinent to note that though the Reference Court had discussed the oral as well as documentary evidence adduced by both the parties, there is no clear finding recorded by the Reference Court as to which sale instance or which document was most reliable and comparable to come to the conclusion that the market value of the lands in question was Rs.85/- per sq. mtrs., and not Rs.32/- per sq. mtrs., as determined by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. On specific query put by the Court to Mr.G.M. Amin as to how the said conclusion was arrived at by the Reference Court, Mr.Amin was also not in a position to answer. In the opinion of the Court, though there were sale instances at Exh.40 and 47 to 52 produced by both the sides, and though some exemplars were pertaining to the lands sold during the period of Notification under Section 4 issued in the instant case, and also pertaining to the lands of nearby area, the same have not been taken into consideration by the Reference Court. The Court is at loss as to which sale instance was relied upon or which basis was taken by the Reference Court for arriving at the conclusion that the market value of the land was Rs.85/- per sq. mtrs., at the relevant point of time. The impugned award is not only incomprehensible but lacks reasonings. The Court is at loss as to which sale instance was relied upon or which basis was taken by the Reference Court for arriving at the conclusion that the market value of the land was Rs.85/- per sq. mtrs., at the relevant point of time. The impugned award is not only incomprehensible but lacks reasonings. Since the Reference Court has overlooked material evidence on record for the purpose of fixing the market value of the lands in question at the relevant point of time, and has passed the Award ignoring the settled principles of law for awarding compensation, the same deserves to be set aside, and the cases are required to be remanded to the Reference Court for deciding them afresh in accordance with law after considering the entire evidence on record. There could not be any disagreement with the ratio of judgments cited by Mr.G.M. Amin in respect of determination of compensation, however, the same are not dealt with in details as it is not necessary to deal with them at this juncture, when the cases are being remanded. 7. In that view of the matter the impugned award is set aside. All the cases are remanded to the Reference Court for deciding them afresh and in accordance with law after considering the evidence on record, and after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to both the parties. The Reference Court shall decide the cases as expeditiously as possible and preferably within six months from the date of receipt of this order. 8. The appeals stand allowed accordingly.