JUDGMENT : MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI, J. 1. These appeals are filed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer challenging the award passed by the Reference Court enhancing the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer for acquisition of the lands of the respondents-original claimants. 2. Brief facts are as under. The State authorities required various parcels of agricultural lands of village Ratanpar, Taluka Bayad, District Sabarkantha for the purpose of construction of irrigation canal under Sujalam Sufalam Scheme. Notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 26.9.2004 followed by notification under section 6 on 11.3.2005. The Land Acquisition Officer passed his award on 27.5.2005 granting compensation at the rate of Rs. 8 per sq. mtr. The claimants after accepting the compensation under protest sought reference. Reference Court by the impugned judgment dated 25.4.2013 enhanced the compensation to Rs.8000 per Are i.e. Rs.80 per sq mtrs. Before the Reference Court, the claimants placed heavy reliance on the acquisition of the land for the same purpose in nearby villages. The claimants produced awards passed by the Reference Courts pertaining to acquisition of lands of village Radodara, Ranechi and Alva in which cases notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 6.11.2004, 8.11.2004 and 30.9.2004 respectively. In all these cases, the Reference Court had awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.80 per sq. mtr. In the present case also, therefore, the Court adopted the same parameters. This award is challenged by the Government in the present appeals. 3. Before the Reference Court, one Pursottambhai Patel was examined at exh.40. In his deposition in addition to giving basic facts, he pointed out that the lands under acquisition were fertile agricultural lands where the landowners would grow multiple corps in a year. The village was situated near Bayad, Radodara, Ranechi, Akrundra, etc. The village was a developed village which had dairy, Panchayat office, cold storage, cooperative society and high school. It is also situated close to the railway lines. Close to the villages were hospital, nursing college, factories, etc. He claimed compensation at the rate of Rs.500/per sq mtr. With respect to the lands acquired for the nearby villages, he produced the awards of the Reference Courts. He also stated that the lands under acquisition in the present case were having the same benefits and potentials as the lands of the said villages. He claimed compensation at the rate of Rs.500/per sq mtr. With respect to the lands acquired for the nearby villages, he produced the awards of the Reference Courts. He also stated that the lands under acquisition in the present case were having the same benefits and potentials as the lands of the said villages. He produced the certificate of distance between the present village and the villages in whose cases the references are also decided. 4. In the cross examination, these important aspects of the matter were not challenged. There was no suggestion that the lands of the other villages to which reference was made, enjoyed special benefits, advantages or potential of development. In other words, the say of the claimants that the land in question enjoyed same benefits, advantages and value as those covered by the Reference Court judgments was not seriously disputed. That being the position, the Reference Court correctly decided the reference along the lines of other references already decided by other Courts. It is not even the case of the Government that the awards passed in earlier cases have been interfered by the High Court. In fact, learned AGP pointed out that in case of acquisition of village Ranechi the matter was carried before the High Court. The High Court in judgment dated 26.8.2016 in First Appeal No.1495/2015 and connected appeals dismissed the said appeals confirming the award of the Reference Court. 5. Under the circumstances, the First Appeals are dismissed