JUDGMENT : R.M. CHHAYA, J. 1. All the appeals relate to the same acquisition proceedings and one set of appeals are preferred by the acquiring body and other set of appeals are preferred by the land owners. The same evidence is to be considered, as considered by the learned Reference Court and hence all the appeals were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment and order. 2. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 15.04.2006 passed by the learned 7th Additional Senior Civil Judge, (Rural), Ahmedabad in Land Reference Case Nos. 662 of 1998 to 667 of 1998, the acquiring body erstwhile Gujarat Electricity Board now converted into Gujarat Energy Transmission Corporation Limited has preferred First Appeal Nos. 2447 of 2007 to 2452 of 2007 and the land owners have preferred First Appeal Nos. 3631 to 3636 of 2007 under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “Act”) r/w Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 3. The following facts emerge from the record of the appeals. 3.1. The facts as narrated in First Appeal No.2447 of 2007 are made the basis of this judgment and order. That the land bearing survey nos. 723/1, 723/2+3, 725, 726, 727 and 728 situated at Dholka (Town for Sic) belonging to the original land owners who are respondent in First Appeal Nos. 2447 of 2007 to 2452 of 2007 were acquired for the public purpose of the appellant for constructing of 220 KV Dholka Sub-Station under the provisions of the Act. The relevant dates of the land acquisition proceedings are as under: Notification Date Section 4 27.5.1993 Section 6 14.11.1993 Section 11 (award) 4.3.1995 3.2. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded Rs.5/- per sq mtr. The land owners being dissatisfied with the award passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer preferred Reference Applications under Section 18 of the Act, which came to be referred to the Reference Court and were registered as LAR Case Nos. 662 of 1998 to 667 of 1998 wherein the land owners claimed Rs.175/- per sq mtr. The record indicates that acquiring body filed its reply to the Reference Application at Exh.17 and raised various contentions. The land owners relied upon the following oral evidence: Exh.No. Evidence 25 Deposition of Bhailalhbhai Nagarbhai Patel along with cross examination. 662 of 1998 to 667 of 1998 wherein the land owners claimed Rs.175/- per sq mtr. The record indicates that acquiring body filed its reply to the Reference Application at Exh.17 and raised various contentions. The land owners relied upon the following oral evidence: Exh.No. Evidence 25 Deposition of Bhailalhbhai Nagarbhai Patel along with cross examination. 53 Deposition of Navinbhai @ Navnitbhai Chimanlal Patel along with cross examination. Deposition of Shantilal Patel along with cross examination. 54 Deposition of Hashmukhbhai Bhagwanbhai Bhatt along with cross examination. Deposition of Ismailbhai Abdulkadar Radhanpuri along with cross examination. 58 Deposition of Abdulkadar Mahemadkhan Munshi along with cross examination. Deposition of Mukeshbhai Dahyabhai Patel along with cross examination. 86 Deposition of Kishan Lalbhai Parmar along with cross examination. 3.3. Similarly, the land owners relied upon the following documentary evidence: Exh.No. Evidence 29 to 31 Copy of previous judgments 49 to 57 Copies of sale deeds Copies of village form 7/12 3.4. The Reference Court vide impugned judgment and award, while allowing the Land Reference Application partly based the determination of market value of the lands under acquisition upon the previous award at Exh.88 produced by the acquiring body, which relates to Land Reference Case No. 1241 of 1998 of village Ranoda, which is 2 km away from the land under acquisition solely and determined the market value of the land in question at Rs.26.20ps per sq mtr and thus granted additional amount of Rs.21.20 ps per sq mtr along with all statutory benefits and while disbelieving / not considering the evidence adduced by the land owners and being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said award fixing the market value of the land in question at Rs.26.20 ps per sq mtr, both the acquiring body as well as the land owners have preferred this group of appeals as observed herein above. 4. Heard Mr. Dipak Dave, learned for acquiring body in all the appeals, Mr. Mehul Vakharia, learned advocate for land owners in all the appeals, Mr. Pranav Trivedi, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the Chief Land Acquisition Officer in First Appeal Nos. 2447 of 2007 to 2452 of 2007 and Mr. Tirthraj Pandya, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the Chief Land Acquisition Officer in First Appeal Nos. 3631 of 2007 to 3636 of 2007. Mehul Vakharia, learned advocate for land owners in all the appeals, Mr. Pranav Trivedi, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the Chief Land Acquisition Officer in First Appeal Nos. 2447 of 2007 to 2452 of 2007 and Mr. Tirthraj Pandya, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the Chief Land Acquisition Officer in First Appeal Nos. 3631 of 2007 to 3636 of 2007. Perused the original Record and Proceedings of the Reference Court as well as paper book produced by the learned advocate for the land owners. 5. Mr. Dipak Dave, learned advocate appearing for the acquiring body contended that the Reference Court has committed an error in straightway allowing the Reference Applications and awarding Rs.21.20 ps as additional compensation without appreciating evidence on record. 5.1. Mr. Dave further contended that the Land Acquisition Officer has considered the geographical location of the land in question including its potential, development and fertility and has rightly fixed the compensation, which does not require any enhancement. Mr. Dave further contended that the learned Reference Court has erred in straightway applying the market value fixed by the Reference Court in LAR No.1241 of 1998 at Exh.88 and has not considered the fact that the lands under acquisition are not fertile land and are situated at interior place in Dholka. According to Mr. Dave, Reference Court has not appreciated the fact that lands of the land owners are situated far away from the Dholka and therefore, are not entitled to get more compensation and thus, it was contended that the Reference Court has wrongly fixed the market value of the lands in question at Rs.26.20 ps per sq mtr. Mr. Dave also relied upon the deposition of the witness of the acquiring body one Shri Mukesh Dahyabhai Patel at Exh.63 and contended that the market value of the lands under acquisition was Rs.5 per sq mtr and therefore, the enhancement granted by the Reference Court is excessive and it was contended that the market value as fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer reflects the correct market value of the lands under acquisition. On the aforesaid grounds, Mr. Dave, learned advocate for the acquiring body contended that the appeals filed by the acquiring body deserve to be allowed and the appeals filed by the land owners being merit less and deserve to be dismissed. 6. Per contra, Mr. On the aforesaid grounds, Mr. Dave, learned advocate for the acquiring body contended that the appeals filed by the acquiring body deserve to be allowed and the appeals filed by the land owners being merit less and deserve to be dismissed. 6. Per contra, Mr. Mehul Vakharia, learned advocate for the land owners has taken this Court through the documentary evidence, which was adduced by the claimants, more particularly, the previous award at Exhs.31 & 30, the valuation report at Exh.77, deposition of original land owners at Exhs. 25 & 26 as well as oral deposition of the Deputy Engineer of the acquiring body at Exh.63 and Special Land Acquisition Officer at Exh.86. Mr. Mehul Vakharia, learned advocate for the land owners contended that the award passed by the Reference Court is cryptic and nothing is considered by the Reference Court and the Reference Court has taken into consideration the market value fixed by the Reference Court for the lands of village Ranoda, which is an adjoining land and has discarded the most comparable instance in form of previous award of Dholka itself and has erroneously fixed the market value at Rs.26.20 ps per sq mtr. Mr. Vakharia contended that the contention raised in the appeals filed by the acquiring body are without any basis. It was also further contended that the Reference Court has not taken into consideration even the oral evidence adduced by the parties before it. It was further contended that even as per the deposition of the officer of the acquiring body at Exh.63 the lands under acquisition are situated within the limits of Dholka, which is at Taluka town and therefore, Reference Court has committed an error in fixing the market value based upon the previous award at Exh.88, which relates to Ranod village. Mr. Vakharia referred to the previous award passed in LAR Nos.587 to 1995 to 607 of 1995, wherein, the Reference Court has considered the Land Reference proceedings for the land situated in Dholka itself. Mr. Vakharia further contended that in the said case the market value of the land under acquisition, wherein, Section 4 Notification dated 19.09.1991 was fixed at Rs.100/- per sq mtr. Mr. Vakharia further contended that the said award has been confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in First Appeal Nos. Mr. Vakharia further contended that in the said case the market value of the land under acquisition, wherein, Section 4 Notification dated 19.09.1991 was fixed at Rs.100/- per sq mtr. Mr. Vakharia further contended that the said award has been confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in First Appeal Nos. 1439 of 2000 to 1454 of 2000 vide the judgment and order dated 30.11.2000 and the said judgment also came to be challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by way of Special Leave Petition and the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the said Special Leave Petition vide order dated 29.07.2002. Mr. Vakharia further contended that the said instance is most comparable instance which has been discarded by the Reference Court without assigning any reason. According to Mr. Vakharia market value of the land should be based upon the market value fixed by the Reference Court in LAR Case No. 586 of 1995. Mr. Vakharia further contended that in the present case Section 4 Notification is dated 25.07.1993 and therefore, considering the rise of two years, the market value of the land in question should be fixed accordingly by allowing the appeals. Mr. Vakharia contended that appeals filed by the land owners deserve to be allowed and appeals filed by the acquiring body totally merit less and deserve to be dismissed. No other and further submissions have been made by the learned advocates for the respective parties. 7. Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties at length and perused the record and proceedings of the case. 8. Before considering the submissions made by both the sides, in facts of this case, it would be appropriate to first refer to the geographical location of the lands under acquisition. It is a matter of fact that lands under acquisition are situated at Dholka, which is not much in dispute. Even if the oral deposition of the Executive Engineer of the acquiring body at Exh.63 is taken into consideration, the said witness has stated in para 3 of the deposition that the lands under acquisition are situated on Sarkhej Bhavnagar Highway and are situated immediately on entering Dholka. It is further stated that Ranod village is between Ahmedabad to Dholka and the boundary of the Dholka and Ranod are adjoining to each other. It is further stated that Ranod village is between Ahmedabad to Dholka and the boundary of the Dholka and Ranod are adjoining to each other. It is also stated in his deposition that the lands under acquisition for 220 KV sub station are situated at a distance of 3 to 4 km from the lands of village Ranod, which were acquired for the public purpose of Narmada Canal. Thus, even from the examination in chief of the Executive Engineer of the acquiring body, it is quite clear that lands under acquisition are within the boundary of Dholka town. It also deserves to be noted at this stage that Ranod is a small village whereas Dholka is a Taluka Place. 9. The record clearly indicates that the parties before the Reference Court adduced the oral as well as documentary evidence. The Reference Court has heavily and only relied upon the previous award at Exh.88 which relates to village Ranod and not Dholka and has granted additional compensation of Rs.21.20ps per sq mtr. It is also evident from the impugned judgment and award that having noted the evidence adduced by both the sides, the Reference Court has only relied upon the previous award at Exh.88 i.e. for village Ranod. Upon reappreciation of evidence on record, we are of the opinion that though the Reference Court has not considered any other documentary evidence which can be based as most comparable instance, such as Valuation Report at Exh.77, Statement of average sale at Exh.78, copy of the sale deeds at Exhs.49 to 57, extracts of village form no.7/12 at Exhs. 80 to 85, however upon reappreciation of evidence on record, the Reference Court has committed an error in coming to the conclusion that the claimants have failed to produce any certain, cogent and relevant evidence as regards the relevant factors such as fertility, potentials and type of land, which were acquired by the previous award, relied upon by the claimants at Exhs.31 & 30. At this juncture, it is also relevant to note that the common judgment and award passed by the learned Reference Court in Reference Application Nos. 587 of 1995 and other allied Reference Applications were challenged before this Court being First Appeal Nos. 1439 of 2000 to 1454 of 2000 and the appeals were dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 30.11.2000. 587 of 1995 and other allied Reference Applications were challenged before this Court being First Appeal Nos. 1439 of 2000 to 1454 of 2000 and the appeals were dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 30.11.2000. It is no doubt true that Exh. 88 previous award in Land Reference Case No. 1241 of 1998, is a relevant piece of evidence. However, the fact remains that the lands acquired under the said previous award are not situated within the Dholka, which is a Taluka Town but are situated in the adjoining village Ranod and therefore, the Reference Court has committed an obvious error in relying upon the said previous award at Exh.88 to be most comparable instance for determining market value of the lands under acquisition when another previous award relating to the same town / village was on record and relied upon by the original claimants. It is found that while comparing both the previous award, the learned Reference Court has failed to take into consideration the relevant factors for determining the market value and instead of that has referred to the factors such as yield of crops or the bills of agricultural produce. Therefore, it is held that the Reference Court has committed an error in appreciating evidence in form of previous award both exh.88 and comparison thereof with the previous award adduced and relied upon by the land owners at Exhs.31 & 30. We also find that the Reference Court has taken into consideration the fact that boundary of village Ranod and Dholka adjoining to each other and that the lands acquired for the purpose of Narmada Canal in reference to previous award at Exh.88 are situated at a distance of 2 km whereas the Reference Court has not even compared the lands which were under acquisition in the previous award at Exh.31 & 30, which are situated within the boundary of the village / town Dholka. 10. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chimanlal Hargovanbhai vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Poona and Another reported in (1983) 3 SCC 751 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed thus: “4. 10. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chimanlal Hargovanbhai vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Poona and Another reported in (1983) 3 SCC 751 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed thus: “4. The following factors must be etched on the mental screen : (1) A reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act is not an appeal against the award and the Court cannot take into account the material relied upon by the Land Acquisition Officer in his Award unless the same material is produced and proved before the Court. (2) So also the Award of the Land Acquisition Officer is not to be treated as a judgment of the trial Court open or exposed to challenge before the court hearing the Reference. It is merely an offer made by the Land Acquisition Officer and the material utilised by him for making his valuation cannot be utilised by the Court unless produced and proved before it. It is not the function of the court to sit in appeal against the Award, approve or disapprove its reasoning, or correct its error or affirm, modify or reverse the conclusion reached by the Land Acquisition Officer, as if it were an appellate Court. (3) The Court has to treat the reference as an original proceeding before it and determine the market value afresh on the basis of the material produced before it. (4) The claimant is in the position of a plaintiff who has to show that the price offered for his land in the award is inadequate on the basis of the materials produced in the Court. Of course the materials placed and proved by the other side can also be taken into account for this purpose. (5) The market value of land under acquisition has to be determined as on the crucial date of publication of the notification under S. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (dates of Notifications under Ss. 6 and 9 are irrelevant). (6) The determination has to be made standing on the date line of valuation (date of publication of notification under S. 4) as if the valuer is a hypothetical purchaser willing to purchase land from the open market and is prepared to pay a reasonable price as on that day. 6 and 9 are irrelevant). (6) The determination has to be made standing on the date line of valuation (date of publication of notification under S. 4) as if the valuer is a hypothetical purchaser willing to purchase land from the open market and is prepared to pay a reasonable price as on that day. It has also to be assumed that the vendor is willing to sell the land at a reasonable price. (7) In doing so by the instances method, the Court has to correlate the market value reflected in the most comparable instance which provides the index of market value. (8) Only genuine instances have to be taken into account. (Sometimes instances are rigged up in anticipation of Acquisition of land.) (9) Even postnotification instances can be taken into account (1) if they are very proximate, (2) genuine and (3) the acquisition itself has not motivated the purchaser to pay a higher price on account of the resultant improvement in development prospects. (10) The most comparable instances out of the genuine instances have to be identified on the following considerations : (i) proximity from time angle (ii) proximity from situation angle. (11) Having identified the instances which provide the index of market value the price reflected therein may be taken as the norm and the market value of the land under acquisition may be deduced by making suitable adjustments for the plus and minus factors visavis land under acquisition by placing the two in juxtaposition. (12) A balancesheet of plus and minus factors may be drawn for this purpose and the relevant factors may be evaluated in terms of price variation as a prudent purchaser would do. (13) The market value of the land under acquisition has thereafter to be deduced by loading the price reflected in the instance taken as norm for plus factors and unloading it for minus factors. (14) The exercise indicated in clauses (11) to (13) has to be undertaken in a common sense manner as a prudent man of the world of business would do. We may illustrate some such illustrative (not exhaustive) factors :- Plus factors Minus factors 1. Smallness of size. 1. largeness of area. 2. Proximity to a road. 2. situation in the interior at a distance from the road. 3. frontage on a road. 3. narrow strip of land with very small frontage compared to depth. 4. We may illustrate some such illustrative (not exhaustive) factors :- Plus factors Minus factors 1. Smallness of size. 1. largeness of area. 2. Proximity to a road. 2. situation in the interior at a distance from the road. 3. frontage on a road. 3. narrow strip of land with very small frontage compared to depth. 4. nearness to developed area. 4. lower level requiring the depressed portion to be filled up. 5. regular shape. 5. remoteness from developed locality. 6. level vis-a-vis land under acquisition. 6. some special disadvantageous factor which would deter a purchaser 7. special value for an owner of an adjoining property to whom it may have some very special advantage. (15) The evaluation of these factors of course depends on the facts of each case. There cannot be any hard and fast or rigid rule. Common sense is the best and most reliable guide. For instance, take the factor regarding the size. A building plot of land say 500 to 1000 sq. yds cannot be compared with a large tract or block of land of say 10000 eq. yds. or more. Firstly while a smaller plot is within the reach of many, a large block of land will have to be developed by preparing a lay out, carving out roads, leaving open space, plotting out smaller plots, waiting for purchasers (meanwhile the invested money will be blocked up) and the hazards of an entrepreneur. The factor can be discounted by making a deduction byway of an allowance at an appropriate rate ranging approx. between 20% to 50% to account for land required to be set apart for carving out lands and plotting out small plots. The discounting will to some extent also depend on whether it is a rural area or urban area, whether building activity is picking up, and whether waiting period during which the capital of the entrepreneur would be locked up, will be longer or shorter and the attendant hazards. (16) Every case must be dealt with on its own fact pattern bearing in mind all these factors as a prudent purchaser of land in which position the Judge must place himself. (17) These are general guidelines to be applied with understanding informed with common sense.” 10.1. (16) Every case must be dealt with on its own fact pattern bearing in mind all these factors as a prudent purchaser of land in which position the Judge must place himself. (17) These are general guidelines to be applied with understanding informed with common sense.” 10.1. We find that while basing the impugned judgment and award based upon the previous award at Exh.88,the learned Reference Court has not at all considered the aforesaid principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 11. As observed herein above, even considering the deposition of the Executive Engineer of acquiring body at Exh.63, it is quite clear that lands under acquisition are situated within the limits of Dholka town which are admittedly at Taluka Place. Moreover, the lands under acquisition are situated upon highway going from Ahmedabad to Bhavnagar and as stated by the said witness that the lands are situated immediately on the entry of the Dholka Town and therefore, the Reference Court has committed an error in basing its award and determining the market value of the lands under acquisition at Rs.26.20 per sq mtr on previous award at Exh.88, which relates to the adjoining village. 12. Having come to the aforesaid conclusion, upon reappreciation of the evidence in form of previous award at Exhs.31 & 30 which relates to the lands situated at village / town Dholka in the said case, Section 4 Notification is dated 19.09.1991 whereas in case on hand, Section 4 Notification is dated 25.07.1993, therefore, there is a gap of almost two years between two notifications issued under Section 4 of the Act. Considering the said aspect, therefore, applying the principle of permissible increase because of gap of initiation of proceedings under the Act, the land owners would be entitled to increase in valuation by 10% per year and therefore, the market value of the lands in question would rise from Rs.100/- to Rs.120/- i. e. Rs.10/- per year. However, considering the geographical location of the lands under acquisition and the lands acquired under the previous award at Exh.31 and also taking into consideration the oral deposition of the Executive Engineer of the acquiring body at Exh.63 as well as oral deposition of Land Acquisition Officer at Exh.86, the lands acquired under the previous award at Exhs.31 & 30 are more prominently situated within the Dholka Town, which is also evident from the map at Exh.89. It is also a matter of record which can be culled out from the plethora of evidence on record that Ranod is a small village and not developed whereas Dholka is town / Taluka which is fully developed with all types of infrastructure and as observed above, therefore, the lands of village Ranod cannot be compared with the lands situated at Dholka, which is a Taluka Town. However, considering the geographical location of the lands under acquisition and the lands acquired by the previous award at Exhs.31 & 30 and taking into consideration the factors like proximity to a road, frontage on a road, nearness to developed area etc. while determining the market value of the lands under acquisition, some cut is required to be imposed while determining the market value for the lands under the acquisition and following ratio laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chimanlal Hargovandas (supra) as well as judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Rajkumar Baghal Singh (dead) Through legal representatives and Ors reported in (2014) 10 SCC 422 , considering all such relevant factors such as municipal limits, potentials for development and other relevant factors as observed herein above, on facts, it is held that cut of 20% would be justified while considering the market value of the lands under acquisition and thus, market value of the lands under acquisition would come to Rs.100/- per sq mtrs, which in opinion of this Court would be proper and adequate compensation. 13. In light of the aforesaid, therefore, all the contentions raised by Mr. Dave learned advocate for the acquiring body deserve to be negatived and contentions raised by Mr. Mehul Vakharia, learned advocate for the lands owners deserves to be accepted in view of the observations made herein above. The land owners therefore, would be entitled to market value for the lands acquired for the purpose of construction of 220 KV Dholka Sub-Station vide notification dated 27.05.1993 at Rs.100/- per sq mtr along with all other statutory benefits under the Act as awarded by the learned Reference Court. Thus, First Appeal Nos. 2447 to 2452 of 2017 filed by the acquiring body fail and are hereby dismissed and the First Appeal Nos.3631 to 3636 of 2007 filed by the land owners are partly allowed and judgment and award stands modified accordingly. Thus, First Appeal Nos. 2447 to 2452 of 2017 filed by the acquiring body fail and are hereby dismissed and the First Appeal Nos.3631 to 3636 of 2007 filed by the land owners are partly allowed and judgment and award stands modified accordingly. However, there shall be no order as to costs in these appeals. 14. Registry is directed to send back the Record and Proceedings of the case to the learned Reference Court forthwith.