JUDGMENT : R.M. Chhaya, J. 1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common judgment and award dated 13.12.2018 passed in Land Reference Case Nos. 03 of 2014 to 06 of 2014 passed by the 2nd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Mehsana, the acquiring body has preferred these appeals under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") r/w Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. As all the appeals are directed against the same judgment and award and relates to the same acquisition proceedings, all the appeals were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment and order. 2. The following facts emerge from the record of these appeals. The land situated at village Mevad, Tal & Dist. Mehsana belonging to respondent No. 1 in each appeal was acquired for the public purpose of Drill Site MWDE by the appellant. The record indicates that the Notification under Section 4 of the Act was published on 9.10.2009 followed by declaration under Section 6 on 16.7.2010, which ultimately culminated into award under Section 11(1) of the Act dated 13.07.202(sic). The Land Acquisition Officer determined the market price of the land acquired at Rs. 82/- per sq mtr. Against the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, the land owners preferred Reference Applications under Section 18 of the Act, which was referred to the learned Reference Court and same were registered as LAR Case Nos. 03 of 2014 to 06 of 2014. The original land owners claimed Rs. 5000/- per sq mtr as compensation. The issues were framed at Exh. 10, which reads as under: "1. Whether the applicant/s proves that the amount of compensation awarded is inadequate? 2. If yes, what additional compensation be awarded to the applicant's? 3. Whether the LAR case is filed within the limitation provided u/s. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act? 4. What order and award?" 2.1. The original land owners adduced oral evidence by way of deposition of the claimant-Mansangbhai Abherajbhai at Exh. 31 and also examined Vinodbhai Ravishanker, Junior Town Planner at Exh. 52. The Special Land Acquisition Officer - Mr. Balmukund Nanbhai Patel was examined at Exh. 55. 4. What order and award?" 2.1. The original land owners adduced oral evidence by way of deposition of the claimant-Mansangbhai Abherajbhai at Exh. 31 and also examined Vinodbhai Ravishanker, Junior Town Planner at Exh. 52. The Special Land Acquisition Officer - Mr. Balmukund Nanbhai Patel was examined at Exh. 55. Over and above the same, the land owners also relied upon the documentary evidence including map and previous award as well as copies of the sale deed to justify their claim as prayed for in the claim petition. The Reference Court by the impugned judgment and award (common award) partly allowed the Reference Applications and determined the market value of the land under acquisition at Rs. 1181.25 per sq mtr. 2.2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Reference Court, the present appellant-acquiring body has preferred these appeals. 3. Heard Mr. Ajay Mehta, learned advocate for the appellant in all the Appeals, Mr. Tirthraj Pandya, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the Special Land Acquisition Officer in all the appeals and Mr. A.V. Prajapati, learned advocate for the original owners in all the appeals and also perused the Record and Proceedings of the case. 4. Mr. Ajay Mehta, learned advocate for the appellant relying upon the original Record and Proceedings, copies of documents which are also annexed with the appeals contended that the Reference Applications were listed before the Reference Court on 27.11.2018 and on the said date the same was adjourned to 10.12.2018, which is evident from the original record and proceedings and the Rojkam. Mr. Mehta contended that without informing the appellant and the District Government Pleader who appeared for Special Land Acquisition Officer, land owners filed an application on 6.12.2018 with a prayer to take the matter on board and produced certain documents, which came to be exhibited at Exhs. 66 to 73 and the matter was again kept on 10.12.2018 as was already adjourned to that day on 27.11.2018. Mr. Mehta further referring to the Rojkam contended that by overwriting over the date was thereafter kept on 13.12.2018 and impugned judgment and award came to be passed. Mr. 66 to 73 and the matter was again kept on 10.12.2018 as was already adjourned to that day on 27.11.2018. Mr. Mehta further referring to the Rojkam contended that by overwriting over the date was thereafter kept on 13.12.2018 and impugned judgment and award came to be passed. Mr. Mehta submitted that after the evidence was over and the matter was specifically adjourned to 10.12.2018, the Reference Court without any prior notice to any other parties, took the Reference Applications on record, permitted the land owners to adduce further documentary evidence and without following any procedure, exhibited the documents at Exh. Nos. 66 to 73 and having done so, in para 7 of the judgment, the Reference Court has observed that no submissions have been made on behalf of the appellant. It was submitted by Mr. Mehta that thus the impugned judgment and award is passed without considering the material on record and without giving an opportunity of being heard to the appellant and therefore, impugned judgment and award deserves to be quashed and set aside and proceedings be remanded back to the learned Reference Court for its re-hearing. On the aforesaid grounds, it was therefore, contended that appeals be allowed and the proceedings be remanded back to the learned Reference Court. 5. Mr. Tirthraj Pandya, learned Assistant Government Pleader has also submitted that the contentions raised by the appellant clearly reflects from the original Record and proceedings and therefore, the appeals be allowed and proceedings be remanded back to the learned Reference Court. 6. Per contra, Mr. A.V. Prajapati, learned advocate for the land owners has opposed this appeals and has submitted that the Reference Court has followed the procedure and thereafter has decided the Reference Applications on merits and therefore, no interference is called for. 7. No other and further submissions have been made by the learned advocates for the respective parties. 8. We have thoroughly gone through the original Record and Proceedings. The contention of the appellant gets a support from Rojkam which reflects that after the proceedings of 27.11.2018, the matter was adjourned to 10.12.2018. The Rojkam further indicates that the previous date was 30.10.2018 which has reference of Exhs. 59, 60, 61 and 62. Application Exh. 59 is dated 30.10.2018, copy of which was served upon the learned Assistant Government Pleader and there is endorsement of "no objection". Application Exh. The Rojkam further indicates that the previous date was 30.10.2018 which has reference of Exhs. 59, 60, 61 and 62. Application Exh. 59 is dated 30.10.2018, copy of which was served upon the learned Assistant Government Pleader and there is endorsement of "no objection". Application Exh. 59 shows that in Land Reference Case No. 6 of 2014, the original land owners had expired and therefore, a request was made that though the Reference Application has been adjourned to 27.11.2018, the same may be taken on board as it is necessary to bring the heirs on record. Exhibit 60 is an application for bringing the heirs on record in Land Reference Case No. 6 of 2014 along with affidavits and Vakalatnama. Exhibit 61 is documents list whereby death certificate of Chaudhary Virsangbhai Rugnathbhai as well as pedigree chart as well as affidavit is brought on record. The Rojkam further indicates that on 30.10.2018 application at Exh. 60 was kept for argument and hearing on 27.11.2018 and on 27.11.2018 it is mentioned that the arguments were heard and kept for orders and the matter was adjourned to 10.12.2018. The Rojkam of Land Reference Case No. 6 of 2014 does not indicate this fact. However, the aforesaid is found in Record and Proceedings of LAR Case No. 3 of 2014. In the Record and Proceedings of LAR Case No. 6 of 2014 the amendment is carried out and it is mentioned that "as per the order passed below Exh. 60". On perusal of the application at Exh. 60, it is found that handwritten order is passed on 30.10.2018 itself though in the Rojkam it is mentioned that the said application was kept for arguments and was adjourned on 27.11.2018. 8.1. On further examination of the Record and Proceedings, it is found that though the Reference Applications were adjourned on 10.12.2018, the application was given by the Advocate of the land owners on 6.12.2018 with a request to take the matter on board. The application Exh. 63 indicates that no copy was given either to Government Pleader or Advocate for the acquiring body and it was granted by the Reference Court without any hearing or without even informing the other side. Exh. 64 is an application filed by the land owners on 6.12.2018, which also came to be granted for production of document and same are exhibited at Exhs. No. 66 to 73. Exh. 64 is an application filed by the land owners on 6.12.2018, which also came to be granted for production of document and same are exhibited at Exhs. No. 66 to 73. In light of the aforesaid original record and proceedings, in para 7 of the judgment dated 13.12.2018, no submissions were made by respondent No. 2 i.e. Special Land Acquisition Officer. Thus, it clearly establishes the fact that application at Exh. 60 was granted without any effective hearing and even though no copy was served upon the other side, the matter was preponed from 10.12.2018 to 06.12.2018. By an order passed below application Exh. 63, without informing the other side and without even service of the said application upon the appellant as well as advocate for the Special Land Acquisition Officer, straightway documents produced by the land owners below application Exh. 64 have been exhibited, which are xerox copies of document at Exhs. 66 to 73. Upon considering the procedure which is adopted by the learned Reference Court, this Court is at pain to notice that the Reference Court has not followed the procedure in accordance with law and has preponed the proceedings without any notice to the Advocate for the appellant as well as Special Land Acquisition Officer. Upon examining the original Rojkam from the Record and Proceedings, overwriting of the date from 10.12.2018 to 13.12.2018 also cannot be ruled out. Though, the Reference Court was deciding the Reference Applications for compensation under Section 18 of the Act, the Reference Court cannot give go bye to the basic procedure, which is required. It was the duty of the Reference Court to see that the application at Exh. 63 is served upon the appellant as well as Special Land Acquisition Officer and after hearing all the parties, reference application should have been preponed, if found necessary. Such lapse on the part of the Reference Court cannot be countenance in a Court of law. 8.2. 63 is served upon the appellant as well as Special Land Acquisition Officer and after hearing all the parties, reference application should have been preponed, if found necessary. Such lapse on the part of the Reference Court cannot be countenance in a Court of law. 8.2. In view of the aforesaid fact, it clearly transpires that the proper opportunity of hearing has not been given to the appellant and even though stage of evidence was over, matter was preponed without prior notice to the other side i.e. the appellant and Special Land Acquisition Officer and the documents were taken on record and admitted in evidence without informing or giving copies of the same to the appellant as well as Special Land Acquisition Officer. 9. In light of the aforesaid alarming facts and procedural lapses, the impugned common judgment and award dated 13.12.2018 passed in Land Reference Case Nos. 03 of 2014 to 06 of 2014 by the learned 2nd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Mehsana deserves to be quashed and set aside and the proceedings of Land Reference Case Nos. 03 of 2014 to 06 of 2014 deserve to be remanded back to the learned Reference Court. 10. In the above backdrop, present appeals are allowed and the impugned common judgment and award, as aforesaid, is hereby quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to the learned Reference Court. 10.1. The learned Principal District Judge, Mehsana is directed to assign the aforesaid remand proceedings to any other Court, other than the Court which had earlier decided the proceedings of Land Reference Case Nos. 03 of 2014 to 06 of 2014. The Reference Court shall decide such proceedings afresh, on their own merits, after giving due opportunity of hearing to all the parties. 10.2. In facts of this case, copy of this judgment be sent to Registrar General of this Court for appropriate actions. 10.3. In view of disposal of main first appeals, civil applications therein, stand disposed of accordingly.