JUDGMENT : R.M. Chhaya, J. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the common judgment and award dated 15.06.2013 passed by the learned 5th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Gandhinagar in Land Reference Cases No. 176 of 2005 to 183 of 2005, the land owners as well as the acquiring body, i.e., Gujarat Housing Board have preferred this appeal under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") read with section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. As common contentions are raised and the same relates to the same acquisition, all the appeals were heard together and are hereby dealt with by this common judgment and order. 3. The facts as stated in Appeal No. 3287 of 2013 is taken as basis of this judgment and order. 4. The land belonging to the land owners were situated in Dehgam town of Gandhinagar district. The land belonging to the land owners/claimants are acquired for public purpose of housing scheme for the Gujarat Housing Board. The record indicates that a proposal was made for acquisition of the land in question to the Collector, Ahmedabad on 15.07.1992 and the said proposal was approved and sent for further process by the Collector, Ahmedabad on 26.08.1992. Notification under section 4 was published as provided under section 4(1) of the Act in daily newspaper Sandesh and Jaihind on 08.12.1992. The public notice for acquisition was published at site as well as on the notice board of village panchayat on 04.12.1992 and the notice of the same was also published on the notice board of Mamlatdar office and Taluka Development Officer, Dehgam on 04.12.1992. Notification under section 4 was published in the Government Gazette on 14.01.1993. After further following the procedure, the Collector, Ahmedabad issued a declaration as provided under section 6(1) of the Act on 05.04.1993. The said declaration under section 6 was thereafter published in Government Gazette on 15.04.1993 and in Gujarati daily Sambhav on 18.04.1993 and in Hindi daily Young Leader on 17.04.1994. The declaration was also published at the site as well as at the notice board of village panchayat on 15.04.1993 and on the notice board of Mamlatdar office, Dehgam and Taluka Development Officer's office on 15.04.1993. The declaration was also published at the site as well as at the notice board of village panchayat on 15.04.1993 and on the notice board of Mamlatdar office, Dehgam and Taluka Development Officer's office on 15.04.1993. Thereafter, the Special Land Acquisition Officer issued a notice as provided under section 9 of the Act and thereafter gave opportunity of being heard as provided under section 9(3)(4) of the Act. The Special Land Acquisition Officer made and declared award as provided under section 11 of the Act on 17.04.1995. By the said award, the Special Land Acquisition Officer determined the market value of the lands acquired at Rs.32/- per sq. mtr. The land owners did not accept the award and filed applications for reference before the Special Land Acquisition officer as provided under section 18 of the Act, which were referred by the Special Land Acquisition Officer to the Reference Court, which came to be registered as Land Reference Case Nos.176 of 2005 to 183 of 2005. The land owners also relied upon the documentary evidence such as map of Dehgam, award passed by the District Collector, registered sale deed of survey No. 38-2B, copy of the registered sale deed of survey No.1674, letter of AUDA, possession receipt dated 04.05.1988, village form no.7/12 of Survey No.1055 and village form No. 7/12 of Survey No.1059 being exhibit 32 to 37 and the land owner-original claimant Shri Chanduji Purshottam Amin also gave oral deposition at exhibit 36. 5. The acquiring body Gujarat Housing Board also relied upon sale instance from exhibit 45 to 49 in form of Index 2, judgment and award rendered by the District Court in Land Acquisition Case Nos. 1358 to 1363 of 1987 dated 31.07.1997 at exhibit 50, order of this Court rendered in First Appeal No.2381 of 1998 dated 23.12.2008 at exhibit 51. The issues were framed at exhibit 35. After considering the evidence on record, the learned Reference Court relied upon the judgment and award at exhibit 50 which relates to the land situated in the same town, i.e., Dehgam as well as judgment and order of this Court in First Appeal No.2381 of 1998 dated 23.12.2008 at exhibit 51 and while partly allowing the reference application, determined the market value of the lands acquired at Rs.117.90 and also granted statutory benefits of additional amount, solatium and interest. The land owners as well as the acquiring body Gujarat Housing Board, being aggrieved by the common judgment and award, have filed these appeals. 6. Heard Mr. G.M. Amin, learned counsel for the land owners-original claimants in all the appeals, Mr. Shirish Gohil, learned AGP for Special Land Acquisition Officer in all the appeals and Mr. Y.N. Ravani, learned counsel for the Executive Engineer, Gujarat Housing Board and also perused the original record and proceedings. 7. Mr. Amin, learned counsel appearing for the appellants has relied upon the documentary evidence produced by the land owners-original claimants. Mr. Amin contended that the Reference Court has committed error in applying the judgment at exhibit 50 and 51. Mr. Amin contended that it was a comparable instance which was available on record, however, while relying upon the same, the reference court has committed obvious error in giving additional amount of Rs.54/- only. It was submitted by Mr. Amin that the learned Reference Court has failed to appreciate that the price determined by this Court in the judgment at exhibit 51 was Rs.72/- per sq. mtr. and not Rs.54/- and therefore, the very basis of the determination of the market price is erroneously applied by the learned Reference Court. 8. Mr. Amin also relied upon other documentary evidence produced by the claimants and submitted that though the claimants have adduced ample evidence before the Reference Court wherein the price of the land in the vicinity of the lands under acquisition is between Rs.110/- per sq.mtr. to Rs.336/- per sq. mtr., the same is not considered. It was therefore submitted that the Reference Court has thus committed an error in determining the market value of the lands under acquisition. Mr. Amin also further contended that the very fact that the lands are sought to be acquired for the public purpose of construction of housing project of Gujarat Housing Board clearly establishes the fact that the lands in question has proximity within the town of Dehgam which is a fast developing town under the local jurisdiction as well as within jurisdiction of Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority. It was therefore submitted that the Reference Court ought to have relied upon the documentary evidence at exhibit 31 to 34 and should have determined the price. It was therefore submitted that the Reference Court ought to have relied upon the documentary evidence at exhibit 31 to 34 and should have determined the price. It was also contended that the Reference Court has also erred in appreciating the documentary evidence at exhibit 50 and 51 and has wrongly come to the conclusion that the market value of the land in question is Rs.117.90 per sq. mtr. On the aforesaid grounds, it was therefore contended by Mr. Amin that the appeals filed by the land owners be allowed and the appeals filed by the acquiring body Gujarat Housing Board be dismissed. 9. Per contra Mr. Y.N. Ravani, learned advocate appearing for the Gujarat Housing Board has taken this Court through the deposition of the officer of the acquiring body at exhibit 52. It was contended by Mr. Ravani, learned counsel appearing for the acquiring body that it is clear from the deposition of the officer of the acquiring body that the geographical location of the lands acquired is not at all in a developing area. It was contended by Mr. Ravani that the Reference Court has not considered the factor of the type of land which is acquired by the Housing Board and has wrongly applied and appreciated the evidence at exhibit 50 and 51. It was also further contended that the judgment and order at exhibit 50 and 51 relates to the lands which were situated within the residential area whereas as deposed by the witness of the acquiring body at exhibit 52, the lands acquired are of a different quality and the geographical location is also different and therefore the reference court has wrongly relied upon the judgment of this Court at exhibit 51 and has wrongly awarded Rs.117.90 per sq. mtr. Mr. Ravani further contended that considering the type of the land, and its geographical location, the market price determined by the Reference Court is on a higher side and even if it is taken as basis as comparable instance, considering the geographical location of the lands in question, the market price ought to have been much less and it was submitted that the land acquisition officer has therefore rightly determined the market price at Rs.32/- per sq. mtr. which should be upheld by this Court. Mr. mtr. which should be upheld by this Court. Mr. Ravani further relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Patiala Urban Planning and Development Authority vs. Tarlochan Singh and Ors. reported in, 2018 15 Scale 10 and contended that the Reference Court ought not to have relied upon the judgment of this Court in First Appeal No. 5381/97 as the acquisition of the said land was of earlier date and section 4 notification was published on 05.03.1981. Mr. Ravani further submitted that the learned Reference Court has also misinterpreted section 28 as well as section 34 of the Act and has wrongly awarded interest at the rate of 9% p.a. for the first year and 15% thereafter, which should be in facts of this case 8%. it was therefore submitted by Mr. Ravani that on the aforesaid grounds, the appeals filed by the acquiring body deserves to be allowed and the appeals filed by the land owners-original claimants deserves to be dismissed. 10. Mr. Shirish Gohil, learned AGP has adopted the arguments made by Mr. Ravani. 11. No other or further submissions have been made by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. 12. Upon considering the submissions made and on perusal of the Record & Proceedings, it deserves to be noted at the outset that the lands acquired for the public purpose of Gujarat Housing Board are situated within Dehgam town which is within the area of Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority. Upon re-appreciation of the evidence of map at exhibit 30, it clearly transpires that the land in question is situated within the area of Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority, which clearly proves that the land under acquisition has potential of urban development. Even the public purpose for which the lands have been acquired clearly establishes the fact that the lands under acquisition have potential of urban development and the proximity of development is as good as urban land even though the tenure of the land may be agricultural. Upon further examining and appreciating the evidence which was led by the land owners/claimants exhibit 31 is the order passed by the District Collector, Ahmedabad. The said land is a small parcel of land admeasuring 609 sq. mtrs. Upon further examining and appreciating the evidence which was led by the land owners/claimants exhibit 31 is the order passed by the District Collector, Ahmedabad. The said land is a small parcel of land admeasuring 609 sq. mtrs. which was allotted by the District Collector, Ahmedabad on recommendation from the Chief Executive Officer, Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority to Central Government for IDSNT project for construction of shopping centre. Though the land is situated in Dehgam town, the said example would not be a comparable instance as it is a very small plots, whereas the land under acquisition is a large chunk of land admeasuring 93339 sq. mtrs. Similarly Exhibit 32 relied upon by the land owners is a registered sale deed dated 16.12.1991 relating to survey no. 32.2/B part situated at Dehgam, however, the said land is also a small piece of land admeasuring only 513 sq. mtrs. and therefore, the same cannot be taken as a comparable instance. Similarly, exhibit 33 is a copy of the registered sale deed dated 15.10.1991 relating to land situated at Dehgam being Revenue Survey No. 1674, however, the said land is a constructed industrial plot having construction of 237.88 sq. mtrs. and open margin land admeasuring 2144.12 sq. mtrs., total admeasuring 2382 sq.mtrs. only which also cannot be considered to be comparable instance for determination of large chunk of lands acquired. In juxtaposition of the aforesaid, sale instances relied upon by the acquiring body Gujarat Housing Board more particularly exhibit 45 to 49 which are in form of extracts of sale register index no.2 are concerned, upon reappreciation of the said piece of evidence, exhibit 45, relates to agricultural land with non-irrigated facilities and are transactions of the year 2003 and 2007 whereas the section 4 notification in the instant case is dated 14.01.1993. Similarly exhibit 46, 47, 48 and 49 are also sale instances of the dates after section 4 notification. Acquiring body, Gujarat Housing Board has relied upon the judgment and award dated 31.07.1997 rendered by the Joint District Judge, Ahmedabad in Land Acquisition Case No. 1361/87 and allied references which relates to the land acquired for Dehgam Growth Centre wherein section 4 notification was dated 05.03.1981 Exhibit 50. Acquiring body, Gujarat Housing Board has relied upon the judgment and award dated 31.07.1997 rendered by the Joint District Judge, Ahmedabad in Land Acquisition Case No. 1361/87 and allied references which relates to the land acquired for Dehgam Growth Centre wherein section 4 notification was dated 05.03.1981 Exhibit 50. Exhibit 51, which is relied upon by the acquiring body housing board and which is also relied upon by the learned Reference Court for considering it to be a comparable instance, relates to lands situated at Dehgam. The Hon'ble High Court (Coram : Mr. Justice H.K. Rathod, as their Lordships then were) have relied upon the judgment rendered in First Appeal No.2381 of 1998 & allied appeals, wherein the Hon'ble Court was pleased to award Rs.54 per sq. mtr. as additional compensation. The acquiring body Gujarat Housing Board has also examined its Executive Engineer Bankeshbhai Nanubhai Patel at exhibit 52. He has stated in his in his examination-in-chief that he has himself seen the lands under acquisition and has also further stated that the land in question has frontage of two roads, one road from DehgamVasna-Rathod road and another from Uthkantheshwar road. He has also stated that when the lands were acquired, area was not developed, however, he has further stated in his examination-in-chief that residential quarters for economically weaker section have been constructed. Though in his further examination in chief he has justified the market value fixed by the land acquisition officer in the award, referring to the award at exhibit 5, he has stated in his cross examination that part of the area comprising of survey no. 1055/1 is designated in commercial zone of the development plan of AUDA and rest of the land is situated in the residential zone of development plan of AUDA. In his further cross examination, he has also narrated the instances of Rajasthan Society, Nilima Park, etc. situated at the northern side of the land under acquisition. He has also further stated in his cross-examination that Sheetkendra of Ahmedabad District Milk Producers Union is situated. He has also admitted in his cross examination that Exhibit 45 to 49 relates to the sale instances registered in the Sub-Registrar Office, Dehgam between 2003 to 2007 whereas preliminary notification of the lands under acquisition is dated 24.11.1992. 13. He has also further stated in his cross-examination that Sheetkendra of Ahmedabad District Milk Producers Union is situated. He has also admitted in his cross examination that Exhibit 45 to 49 relates to the sale instances registered in the Sub-Registrar Office, Dehgam between 2003 to 2007 whereas preliminary notification of the lands under acquisition is dated 24.11.1992. 13. Cumulatively, upon appreciating the evidence adduced by both the sides therefore, establishes the fact that the lands under acquisition are situated at Dehgam and as observed hereinabove, it is within the development area of AUDA. Considering the proximity of development and even the zoning as per the development plan of AUDA, small part of it is designated for commercial development and rest for residential development. Upon further appreciating the evidence led by both the sides, we are of the opinion that the learned Reference Court has rightly relied upon the judgment of this Court at Exhibit 51 more particularly as no other comparable instances is on record. 14. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to refer to the judgment relied upon by this Court in the judgment at Exhibit 51, i.e., judgment of this Court rendered in First Appeal No. 5381/97 and allied appeals. In the said case, the section 4 notification was dated 05.03.1981 wherein this Court has observed as under - "5. This Court has gone into the materials placed on record including the award passed by the reference court. This Court has also considered the sale instances between the AUDA and Collector dated 24.11.1983 and the 1984 notification dated 12.06.1983 and section 23(A) of the Act wherein the price was Rs. 100/- per sq. mtr as well as the decisions relied upon by the learned advocates for the appellants. While going through the documents, it is clear that there are sale instances from AUDA to the Collector and AUDA to the Government where the prices are ranging from Rs. 200 to Rs. 210. She has submitted that the price of Rs. 200/- was for smallness of plot and was effective since 24.11.1983. In that view of the matter, after effecting 30% for non-agricultural land and 20% for smallness of plot the price will be Rs. 100/-. The time gap between the two notifications under section 4 of the Act is of more than two years. Therefore, 28.33% is required to be deducted from the price. In that view of the matter, after effecting 30% for non-agricultural land and 20% for smallness of plot the price will be Rs. 100/-. The time gap between the two notifications under section 4 of the Act is of more than two years. Therefore, 28.33% is required to be deducted from the price. In that view of the matter, the claimants shall be entitled to total Rs. 71.66 per sq. mt. However, Rs. 17.40 per sq. mt. has already been paid to the claimants by the reference court. The claimants shall therefore be entitled to an additional amount of Rs. 54.26 per sq. mt. which is rounded off to Rs. 54/- per sq. mt. along with other benefits entitled thereupon as permissible under the law. 6. In the premises aforesaid, the claimants shall be entitled to additional Rs. 54/- as the price per sq. mtr. The interest thereupon shall be paid to the claimants from the date of award and all benefits shall be calculated in accordance with law as provided under section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act. The impugned award is modified accordingly. Appeals are allowed to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs." 15. In the case on hand, the comparative sale evidence produced by both the sides are not in fact comparative sale instance. As observed hereinabove, the land owners have relied upon sale instances which relate to small plots. Whereas, the acquiring body Gujarat Housing Board has relied upon the sale instances by producing extracts of sell index no.2 which relate to post section 4 notification. The reference court was therefore left with only one piece of evidence, i.e., the award at exhibits 50 and 51. In light of the facts of this case therefore, with respect, the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Patiala Urban Planning and Development Authority (supra) would not be applicable. As far as judgment and award rendered by this Court in First Appeal No. 2381 of 1998 exhibit 51 is concerned, the lands acquired in the said case were situated in the same town, i.e., Dehgam and the nature of the land is also similar. As per the evidence on record, the geographical location of the lands under acquisition has frontage of two roads wherein development has taken place and the lands under acquisition has potential of residential development. As per the evidence on record, the geographical location of the lands under acquisition has frontage of two roads wherein development has taken place and the lands under acquisition has potential of residential development. We are therefore of the opinion that the Reference Court has rightly determined the market price based upon the judgment and award of this Court at exhibit 51 as no other comparable sale instance was available and the reference was left with no other alternative but to determine the market price based upon the judgment and order at exhibit 51 as the lands under acquisition were situated at the same place, i.e., Dehgam, at similar geographical location. A bare reading of the judgment at exhibit 51 as well as judgment of this Court in First Appeal No.5381 of 1997 dated 25.08.2008 is concerned, it is crystal clear that this Court determined the market price of the land at Rs.72 per sq. mtr. and not Rs.54/-. This Court has in fact granted additional compensation of Rs.54/-, as originally in the said case, the land acquisition officer had determined the market price at Rs.17.40 per sq. mtr. The learned Reference Court while determining the market price in the instant case, has considered the market value at Rs.54/- instead of Rs.72/-. Even at the cost of repetition it is provided that upon overall appreciation of the evidence on record, the only comparable instance is the judgment and award at exhibit 51 and having considered the same, the market value of the land in question would come to Rs.140/- (rounded off) per sq. mtr. considering Rs.72/- to be the base price. In the present case, the evidence reveals that the reference court was left with no other alternative but to rely upon the previous award at exhibit 51 which is based on the earlier judgment of this Court rendered in First Appeal No.5381 of 1997 and allied appeals. 16. As far as other limb of contention raised by Mr. In the present case, the evidence reveals that the reference court was left with no other alternative but to rely upon the previous award at exhibit 51 which is based on the earlier judgment of this Court rendered in First Appeal No.5381 of 1997 and allied appeals. 16. As far as other limb of contention raised by Mr. Ravani, learned counsel appearing for the acquiring body Gujarat Housing Board is concerned, on perusal of the impugned judgment and award rendered by the learned Reference Court, the Reference Court has rightly awarded statutory benefits as provided under section 23, 23(1)(a)and 28 and the contention that the interest provided under section 23 by the Reference Court is contrary to the provisions of Section 23 of the Act deserves to be negatived and this Court while examining this appeal under section 54 of the Act cannot reduce the interest to 8% as contended by Mr. Ravani, learned counsel appearing for the Gujarat Housing Board. In light of the aforesaid discussions therefore, we hereby determine that the learned Reference Court has though rightly relied upon the previous judgment and award of this Court relating to the acquisition of land situated at Dehgam having almost similar geographical location as well as similar development potentiality, has committed an obvious error in calculating the market value. Upon appreciating the evidence as discussed in this judgment and considering the potentiality of the land in question, it should be treated in a similar manner, however, considering the over all development and uncertainty of the market, it would be appropriate to fix the market value of the land under acquisition at Rs.140/- per sq. mtr. We therefore hold the market value of the land under acquisition at Rs.140/- per sq. mtr. The land owners would also be entitled to all other statutory benefits as provided under section 23, 23(1)(a) and 28 of the Act. 17. In the result, First Appeal Nos.3287 of 2013, 3288 of 2013, 423 of 2014, 3593 of 2013 and 1519 of 2015 filed by the land owners are partly allowed and First Appeal Nos.2618 to 2623 of 2014, 3303 of 2014 and 3408 of 2014 filed by the Gujarat Housing Board, acquiring body are hereby dismissed. The impugned judgment and award stands modified only to the aforesaid extent. Parties to bear their own costs. R & P be transmitted to the Reference Court forthwith.