ORDER : 1. ADMIT. Learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of admission on behalf of the respondents. With the consent of parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal today itself. 2. Mr. A.V. Prajapati, learned advocate appearing for the appellants would submit that in the present appeal, the appellants have challenged the judgment and award dated 25.3.2014 passed by learned 3rd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Banaskantha at Palanpur in Land Acquisition Reference Case Nos.204 to 216 of 2002. The present appeal is concerned with Reference Case No.215 of 2002. He would further submit that claimants of allied Reference Cases have preferred First Appeal Nos.886 to 890 of 2017 before the Division Bench of this Court and the Division Bench of this Court vide common judgment dated 22.8.2017 partly allowed the said appeals and modified the judgment and award and held that the appellants are entitled to Rs.95.40 – Rs.26.30 = Rs.69.10 as additional compensation. He, therefore, would submit that the present Reference is also identical and arises from the said group of matters and hence, the judgment rendered by the Division Bench squarely applies to the facts of the present case and hence, the present appeal may be allowed in terms of the said decision of the Division Bench of this Court. 3. I have heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and perused the impugned judgment and award of the Reference Court as well as the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court referred above. The judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in First Appeal Nos.886 to 890 of 2017 reads as under :- “1. I have heard Mr. A.V. Prajapati, learned advocate for the appellants and Mr. Hardik Soni, learned AGP for the respondents. 2. The present appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 (“The Act” for short hereinafter) is preferred to challenge the common judgment and order dated 15.03.2014 passed by learned 3rd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Banaskantha at Palanpur in Land Acquisition Reference Case No.204 of 2002 and allied References under Section 18 of the Act. 3. The appellants are not happy with the amount of additional compensation awarded by the Reference Court. Hence, these appeals. 4. Mr. 3. The appellants are not happy with the amount of additional compensation awarded by the Reference Court. Hence, these appeals. 4. Mr. Prajapati, learned advocate for the appellant stoutly submitted that the Reference Court has committed an error in not relying upon the award in respect of land of village Nagla relied upon by the appellants wherein Rs.9.40/- is awarded which is confirmed by this Court in First Appeal No.1332 of 2014 decided on 09.05.2014. It is his further submission that the Reference Court has relying upon the earlier award passed in respect of village Radka ignoring the fact that the land of village Radka are situated 25 kilometers away from the lands of the appellants, though, they are in the same Taluka while the lands of village Nagla are situated in 10 kilometers away from the lands of the appellants. He would also submit that Section 4 Notification in respect of the land of the appellants was published on 06.05.1999 and in respect of land of village Nagla issued on 18.02.1999. It is, therefore, his submission that the Reference ought to have relied upon the award in respect of village Nagla and ought to have awarded Rs.95.40/- instead of Rs.26.30/- as compensation. He, therefore, urges that the appeal may be allowed and compensation may be enhanced accordingly. 5. Per contra, Mr. Hardik Soni, learned Assistant Government Pleader has opposed these appeals and has submitted that there is a delay of 4 years in questioning the impugned judgment and award of the Reference Court. It is his further submission that the appellants had virtually accepted the impugned award of the Reference Court by not challenging it within reasonable time. He, therefore, urges that the appeal may be dismissed. In the alternative, it is his submission that the appellants cannot be permitted to take benefit of the delay which has occurred due to indolence on the part of the appellants, and therefore, interest on the additional compensation may not be awarded. 6. Having heard learned advocates on either side and having perused the impugned judgment it imminently appears that Section 4 Notification in respect of the lands of the appellants was issued on 06.05.1999. Likewise, Notification in respect of land of Village Radka was issued on 12.03.2014 while in respect of lands of village Nagla was issued on 18.02.1999. 6. Having heard learned advocates on either side and having perused the impugned judgment it imminently appears that Section 4 Notification in respect of the lands of the appellants was issued on 06.05.1999. Likewise, Notification in respect of land of Village Radka was issued on 12.03.2014 while in respect of lands of village Nagla was issued on 18.02.1999. Thus, it is vividly clear that Section 4 Notification in respect of the lands of village Radka, village Nagla and village Jandla were issued in the same year, of course, on different dates. Moreover, all these three villages are situated in the same Taluka i.e. Tharad. The appellants in support of the Reference had relied upon the judgment and award in LAR Case No.75 of 2002 and LAR Case No.76 of 2002 in respect of village Nagla while the respondent relied upon the judgment and award in respect of village Radka. The learned Reference Court has chosen to rely on the award in respect of villageRadka in preference to the award in case of villageNagla. 7. A singular question which requires consideration in this clutch of appeals is whether the Reference Court was justified in relying upon the award in respect of village Radka over the award in respect of village Nagla. 8. It appears that the Reference Court is impressed and swayed away by the fact that the judgment and award in LAR Case No.286 of 2002 to 290 of 2002 in respect of village Radka had been accepted by the Government and the acquired land of the appellants and the village Radka both are in the same Taluka i.e. Tharad. 9. In our considered view, the reasoning adopted by the Reference Court for relying upon the award in respect of village Radka over the award in respect of village Nagla is erroneous. It is undisputed fact that village Radka and village Nagla are in the same Taluka i.e. Tharad. Village Radka is situated 25 kilometers away from the acquired lands while village Nagla is situated 10 kilometers away from the acquired land. These fine distinction is ignored by the Reference Court. 10. It is undisputed fact that village Radka and village Nagla are in the same Taluka i.e. Tharad. Village Radka is situated 25 kilometers away from the acquired lands while village Nagla is situated 10 kilometers away from the acquired land. These fine distinction is ignored by the Reference Court. 10. At this juncture, they could not be out of place to mention that the judgment and award rendered by the Reference Court in LAR No.75 of 2002 and 76 of 2002 in respect of village Nagla was challenged by the Government in this Court by filing First Appeal No.1332 of 2014 and First Appeal No.133 of 2014. This Court by order dated 09.05.2014 dismissed the appeals. Consequent upon the dismissal of the appeals, the Government by communication dated 07.12.2015 has decided to accept the judgment and award rendered by the Reference Court in respect of land of village Nagla. 11. The perusal of the judgment and award in respect of village Nagla reveals that the land owners were awarded Rs.3.25/- per sq. meter for irrigated land and Rs.2.50/- per sq. meter for non-irrigated land. The Reference Court by its judgment and order dated 25.07.2013 after considering various factors came to the conclusion that the appropriate price of acquired land was Rs.95.40/- instead of Rs.3.25/- per sq. meter for irrigated land and Rs.2.60/- per sq. meter for non-irrigated land. Accordingly, the land owners were entitled to additional compensation after deducting the compensation warded by the Land Acquisition Officer. The judgment and order of the Reference Court as attain the finality as the appeal has failed and the Government vide communication dated 07.12.2015 has accepted the judgment and order of the Reference Court. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that looking to the approximity of the land acquired under the impugned judgment and order of the land of village Nagla, (the appellants are also entitled to the compensation as was awarded in respect of village Nagla). Under the circumstances, we are persuaded to enhance the compensation awarded to the appellants to bring it in tune with the compensation awarded in respect of village Nagla. And accordingly, the price of the land was of the appellant should be Rs.95.40/, and therefore, the appellants are entitled to the compensation at the rate of Rs.95.5/- per sq. meter in place of Rs.23.30/- as determined by the Reference Court. And accordingly, the price of the land was of the appellant should be Rs.95.40/, and therefore, the appellants are entitled to the compensation at the rate of Rs.95.5/- per sq. meter in place of Rs.23.30/- as determined by the Reference Court. Accordingly, we hold that the appellants are entitled to Rs.95.40/- per squire meter for their acquired land in place of Rs.26.30/- which is awarded by the Reference Court. Accordingly, the appellants are entitled to Rs.95.40/- -Rs.26.30/- = Rs.69.10/- as additional compensation. 12. The submission of Mr. Soni, learned AGP that the appellants were indolent in preferring the appeals inasmuch as the appeals are preferred after four years of the impugned award, and therefore, this Court may not award interest on the additional compensation has substantial force in our opinion. The appeals for inexplicable reasons slept over the matter for four long years, and therefore, if the interest is awarded on the additional compensation, in our view, it would amount to giving premium to the appellants, and therefore, we deem it in the interest of justice to award additional compensation to the appellants without interest. 13. For the foregoing reasons, these appeals succeed in part, the impugned judgment and award dated 15.03.2014 passed in LAR Case No. 204 of 2002 and allied References under Section 18 of the Act is hereby modified and the appellants are held entitled to Rs.95.40 – Rs.26.30 = Rs.69.10 as additional compensation. 14. However, the appellants shall be entitled to interest on the additional amount of compensation only up to 09.03.2007 as they were indolent in approaching this Court after huge delay of 771 days. 15. Parties are left to bare their own costs.” 4. The Division Bench of this Court thereafter passed order on 4.7.2018 in the said Appeals upon a note for speaking to minutes filed by the advocate for the appellants and the said order reads as under :- “1. We have heard Mr. A.V. Prajapati, learned advocate for the appellant and Mr. Hardik Soni, learned AGP for the respondents. 2. The present note for Speaking to Minutes taken out by Mr. A.V. Prajapati, learned advocate for the appellant for rectification of inadvertently mistake, which has occurred in the penultimate paragraph of the Common Judgment dated 22nd August, 2017 as regard the entitlement of interest on the additional amount of compensation. 3. Hardik Soni, learned AGP for the respondents. 2. The present note for Speaking to Minutes taken out by Mr. A.V. Prajapati, learned advocate for the appellant for rectification of inadvertently mistake, which has occurred in the penultimate paragraph of the Common Judgment dated 22nd August, 2017 as regard the entitlement of interest on the additional amount of compensation. 3. The paragraph No. 14 of the judgment reads as under :- “14. However, the appellants shall be entitled to interest on the additional amount of compensation only up to 09.03.2007 as they were indolent in approaching this Court after huge delay of 771 days.” 4. The judgment of the Reference Court impugned in the appeals is dated 25th March, 2014. The appellants slept over their right to file appeal to challenge the judgment of the Reference Court for about more than two years i.e. up to 2nd August, 2016 when the appeals came to be filed. We are, therefore, of the opinion that even quoted judgment as required to be corrected and should read as under :- “The impugned judgment and award of the Reference Court is dated 25th March, 2014. The appellant slept over their right to challenge the judgment of the Reference Court by filing the appeal,but, they have shown indolence in approaching this Court as they filed the appeal after a gap of more than two years gap on 2nd August, 2016. We are, therefore, of the view that awarding interest on the additional amount of compensation for the aforesaid period would be giving premium to the appellant for their indolence. Hence, the appellant shall not be entitled to the interest on the additional amount of compensation for the period from 25th March, 2014 to 2nd August, 2016.” 5. The Registry is directed to carry out the correction and issue fresh writ accordingly. The note for Speaking to Minutes stands disposed of.” 5. Hence, the appellant shall not be entitled to the interest on the additional amount of compensation for the period from 25th March, 2014 to 2nd August, 2016.” 5. The Registry is directed to carry out the correction and issue fresh writ accordingly. The note for Speaking to Minutes stands disposed of.” 5. Since the Reference of the appellants herein was decided by the Reference Court vide common judgment and order and against the said decision, the claimants of other References have preferred First Appeals which have been partly allowed by the Division Bench of this Court as referred above, I am of the opinion that the said judgment of the Division Bench squarely applies to the present appeal also and hence, the present appeal stands partly allowed as per the decision rendered by the Division Bench in First Appeal Nos.886 to 890 of 2017.