JUDGMENT : R.M. CHHAYA, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the common judgment and award dated 09.03.2018 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Amreli in Land Reference Cases no. 104 to 107 of 1999 under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure r/w Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 2. The present appeal arises out of Land Reference Case no. 104 of 1999. The lands belonging to the original appellant situated at Village Nana Bhandariya came to be acquired for the public purpose of Vadi Irrigation Project. 3. A notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for the sake of brevity) was published on 11.4.1996 and the declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published on 04.07.1996 after following the procedure as prescribed under the Act. As per Section 9(3)(4) of the Act, the Land Acquisition Officer made and declared the award as provided under Section 11(1) of the Act on 17.07.1998. The Land Acquisition Officer determined the market value of the lands acquired for the said public purpose at Rs.10.50 per sq. mtr. for Bagayat land and Rs.7 per sq. mtr. for Jirayat land. The appellants, being dissatisfied with the award made by the Land Acquisition Officer, preferred an application for Reference as provided under Section 18 of the Act and claimed Rs.400/- per sq. mtr. for the lands acquired and the same came to be registered as Land Reference Case no. 104 of 1999 before the Court of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Amreli. The other land owners, whose lands situated at Village Nana Bhandariya, which were acquired for the same public purpose, also preferred application under Section 18 of the Act which were also referred to the Reference Court and came to be registered as Land Reference Cases no. 104 to 107 of 1999. All the Land Reference Cases were consolidated and same set of evidence came to be adduced by the appellants, land owners and the respondents herein before the Reference Court. The Reference Court was pleased to frame issues at Exh.8 treating Land Reference Case no. 104 of 1999 as the lead Land Reference Case. The appellants – claimants adduced documentary evidences below Exhs. 21 to 27, 32 and 36, as enumerated by the Reference Court in the impugned judgment and award at Paragraph 12. The Reference Court was pleased to frame issues at Exh.8 treating Land Reference Case no. 104 of 1999 as the lead Land Reference Case. The appellants – claimants adduced documentary evidences below Exhs. 21 to 27, 32 and 36, as enumerated by the Reference Court in the impugned judgment and award at Paragraph 12. The appellant examined one Shri Vijaykumar Prataprai Joso – applicant of LAR No. 106 of 1999 at Exh. 28 as well as one Shri Manabhai Danabhai at Exh. 37. The acquiring body examined one Pravinchandra Ambabhai Govani who was working as Deputy Collector and Land Acquisition Officer at Exh.87 and also relied upon two sale deeds at Exh. 93 and 94. 4. The appellants – claimants relied upon yield method as well as the previous awards passed in relation to Thebi Irrigation Project and contended before the Reference Court based upon oral and documentary evidences so adduced by the appellants. The Reference Court, after appreciating the evidence on record, was pleased to partly allow the Land Reference Cases and determined the market value of the lands under acquisition at Rs.30/- per sq. mtr. for Bagayat land and Rs.20/- per sq. mtr. for Jirayat land along with all other statutory benefits by the impugned judgment and award and being aggrieved by the same, the appellants have preferred these appeals. 5. Heard Mr. G.M. Amin, learned advocate for the appellants and Ms. Megha Chitaliya, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents. 6. Mr. G.M. Amin, learned advocate for the appellants has contended as under :- 6.1 That, the Reference Court has committed an error in determining the market value of the lands under acquisition at Rs.30/- per sq. mtr. for Bagayat land and Rs.20/- per sq. mtr. for Jirayat land. 6.2 Mr. Amin further contended that the lands of Village Nana Bhandariya are very near to Amreli and it abuts on a State Highway. It was also further contended that even though ample evidence was adduced to the effect that the geographical location of the lands under acquisition are similar to that acquired for the purpose of Thebi Irrigation Project, and even though there was clear-cut evidence on record, the Reference Court has determined the market value of the lands under acquisition at a very low rate. It was contended that the Reference Court has misread the documentary evidence adduced by the appellants and has wrongly not believed the evidence adduced by the appellants – claimants. 6.3 Mr. Amin further contended that in a similarly situated case for the very said public purpose i.e. Vadi Irrigation Project, the Division Bench of this Court in First Appeal no. 2825 of 2012 and allied appeals has fixed the market value of the lands acquired for the very public purpose i.e. Vadi Irrigation Project, situated at Village Nana Bhandariya at Rs.65/- per sq. mtr. Mr. Amin therefore submitted that following the decision of the Division Bench in First Appeal no. 2825 of 2012 and allied appeals, the present appeals deserve to be partly allowed. 6.4 Mr. Amin also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Chimanlal Hargovinddas v. Special Land Acquisition Officer (1988) 3 SCC 751 and contended that the Reference Court has not taken into consideration the factors which are to be considered while determining the value of the lands under acquisition. 6.5 On the aforesaid grounds, Mr. Amin submitted that the appeals deserve to be allowed as per the market value determined by this Court in First Appeal no. 2825 of 2012 and allied appeals as the lands under acquisition are similar to that acquired for the purpose of Thebi Irrigation Project. 7. Per contra, Ms. Megha Chitaliya, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent – State has opposed the appeals and has contended as under:- 7.1 That, the Reference Court has considered the evidence adduced by the parties and has rightly determined the market value of the lands under acquisition at Rs.30/- per sq. mtr. for Bagayat land and Rs.20/- per sq. mtr. for Jirayat land. 7.2 Referring to the impugned judgment and award, Ms. Chitaliya contended that the Reference Court has rightly considered the previous awards passed in Land Reference Case No. 41 of 2000 and allied References as well as Land Reference Case No. 56 of 1999 and allied References case and has determined the market value of the lands under acquisition. 7.3 Ms. 7.2 Referring to the impugned judgment and award, Ms. Chitaliya contended that the Reference Court has rightly considered the previous awards passed in Land Reference Case No. 41 of 2000 and allied References as well as Land Reference Case No. 56 of 1999 and allied References case and has determined the market value of the lands under acquisition. 7.3 Ms. Chitaliya, learned AGP contended that the impugned judgment and award is true and correct appreciation of the evidence on record and as the market value fixed by the Reference Court is the true and correct market value of the lands under acquisition, the appeals deserve to be dismissed. 7.4 Ms. Chitaliya further submitted that considering the geographical situation of the lands situated at Village Nana Bhandariya, the Reference Court has rightly relied upon the previous awards and has passed the impugned judgment and award, which does not require any interference. Ms. Chitaliya therefore submitted that the appeals, being meritless, deserve to be dismissed. 8. No other or further contentions and/or submissions have been made by the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. 9. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and upon re-appreciating the evidence on record, it deserves to be noted that in First Appeal no. 2825 of 2012 and allied appeals, this Court has determined the market value for the lands situated at the very same Village i.e. Village Nana Bhandariya Taluka District Amreli, which has been acquired for the very public purpose i.e. Vadi Irrigation Project and in opinion of this Court, the same being the best exemplar deserves to be referred to at this stage. 39. A perusal of the award passed by the Reference Court reveals that it has discarded the evidence adduced by the claimants on the ground that the documentary evidence has not been duly proved in terms of the provisions of the Evidence Act. The Reference Court has thereafter proceeded to place reliance upon the contents of the award on the ground that the award has been exhibited and duly proved despite the fact that the author of the award had not been examined and the witness Yashvinikumar Dayashankar Srivastava had admitted that he has deposed on the basis of the record and has no personal knowledge about the land acquisition proceedings. Ignoring the decision of the Supreme Court in Chimanlal Hargovindas (supra) which finds reference in the impugned judgment and award, the Reference Court has opined that the opponent has proved the award and the map by adducing evidence and that it was open to the court to take resort to both the documents while determining the prevailing market price. Thus, though the sale deeds on the basis of which the award had been made had neither been produced nor proved, the Reference Court has sought to place reliance on the contents of the award. Moreover, after observing that the court can take resort to the award and the map for determining the market price, the Reference Court has thereafter taken note of the fact that for the adjacent village Amrapur (Varudi), the market value in respect of lands acquired for the same project has been determined in Land Reference Cases No.41/2000 to 51/2000 and for the adjacent village Nana Bhandariya, the market value had been determined in Land Reference Cases No.56/1999 to 65/1999 and No.176/1999, wherein the market value of jirayat land had been determined at Rs.20/- per square metre and for bagayat land, at Rs.30/- per square metre, against which the appeals were pending before the High Court and has proceeded to determine the market value of the lands in question at Rs.30/- per square metre for bagayat land and Rs.20/- per square metre for jirayat land. It may be noted that while coming to such conclusion, the Reference Court has not given any finding with regard to the similarity in the lands which were subject matter of the previous awards and the lands which were subject matter of this award, nor has it discussed the distance between those villages. Thus, though, in the impugned judgment and award the evidence adduced by the respective parties has been reproduced and referred to at length, the ultimate conclusion is based upon the awards passed in the case of adjacent villages of Amarpur and Nana Bhandariya 45. From the evidence on record as adduced by the parties in the above referred land acquisition cases, it is revealed that no evidence has been produced on behalf of the claimants based upon sale deeds of the lands situated in the vicinity, except in one case, where a sale deed has been produced in relation to village Mangvapal. From the evidence on record as adduced by the parties in the above referred land acquisition cases, it is revealed that no evidence has been produced on behalf of the claimants based upon sale deeds of the lands situated in the vicinity, except in one case, where a sale deed has been produced in relation to village Mangvapal. On behalf of the respondents, in the first group of cases wherein lands of villages Nana Bhandariya, Amarpur (Varudi) and Mota Ankadiya, came to be acquired, the same set of nine sale deeds have been relied upon which have been referred to in detail hereinabove. As discussed earlier, no evidence has been adduced to point out as to how such lands are comparable to the lands under acquisition, nor has the Land Acquisition Officer seen such lands. Moreover, it is an admitted position that the awards which have been made under section 11 of the Act are not based upon such sale deeds. Under the circumstances, from the evidence on record, there is nothing to show that any substantial evidence has been adduced by way of sale instances so as to determine the market value based upon such sale instances. The only option left with the court is, therefore, to rely upon the previous awards made in the case of the lands situated in the nearby areas. 58. A perusal of the map produced on record, as well as other maps produced by the learned counsel for the respective parties during the course of arguments shows that village Baxipur is situated on the western side of the river Thebi. Insofar as the villages in question are concerned, Mangvapal is situated on the north-western side of Amreli town at a distance of about three kilometres on the Amreli Kunkavav road. On the same road, going a little further, at a distance of 6.2 kilometres from Amreli, village Nana Bhandariya is situated on the panchayat road; village Mota Ankadiya is situated at a distance of 11 kilometres on the Amreli Kunkavav State Highway; village Amarpur (Varudi) is situated between village Mangvapal and Baxipur. 62. It may further be noted that while villages Mangvapal, Amarpur (Varudi), Nana Bhandariya and Mota Ankadiya, are situated at different distances from Amreli town, no evidence has been adduced before the Reference Court to point out any distinction between the lands situated in those villages. 62. It may further be noted that while villages Mangvapal, Amarpur (Varudi), Nana Bhandariya and Mota Ankadiya, are situated at different distances from Amreli town, no evidence has been adduced before the Reference Court to point out any distinction between the lands situated in those villages. The Land Acquisition Officer in case of all the villages has determined the market value at the rate of Rs.7/- per square metre for jirayat land and Rs.10.50 per square metre for bagayat land, whereas the Reference Court in all the cases has determined the market value of the acquired lands in respect of each of the villages at Rs.20/- per square metre for jirayat land and Rs.30/- per square metre for bagayat land. In the absence of any material on record to establish any distinction between the market value of the lands situated in all the four villages, the court deems it fit to adopt the same basis in respect of each village. 66. Insofar as First Appeals No.2825 to 2359 of 2012 and First Appeals No.229 of 2016 to 246 of 2016 are concerned, the notifications under section 4 of the Act have been issued on varying dates in the year 01.02.1996 to 16.06.1996. Considering the market value of the lands to be Rs.50/- per square metre in the year 1993, the appellants would be entitled to an increase of 10% per annum for three years. The market of value of the lands would thus come to Rs.50/- plus Rs.15/- = Rs.65/- per square metre for jirayat lands. For bagayat lands the market value is required to be computed at the rate of one and a half times the rate for jirayat lands Accordingly, the market value of bagayat lands would come to Rs.75.00/- plus Rs.22.50 = Rs.97.50 per square metre. 67. The Reference Court has awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.20/- per square metre for jirayat land and Rs.30/ per square metre for bagayat land. The appellants would therefore be entitled to additional compensation of Rs.45/- per square metre (Rs. 65.00-Rs. 20.00) for jirayat land and Rs.67.50 per square metre (Rs.97.50-Rs.30.00) for bagayat land.” 10. Upon considering the impugned judgment and award, the Reference Court has not believed the case of the appellant that the lands acquired situated at Village Nana Bhandariya is similar to the lands which were acquired for Thebi Irrigation Project. 65.00-Rs. 20.00) for jirayat land and Rs.67.50 per square metre (Rs.97.50-Rs.30.00) for bagayat land.” 10. Upon considering the impugned judgment and award, the Reference Court has not believed the case of the appellant that the lands acquired situated at Village Nana Bhandariya is similar to the lands which were acquired for Thebi Irrigation Project. The Reference Court, relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Baldevsingh and Ors vs. State of Punjab through Collector (1996) 10 SCC 37 as well as the judgment of this Court in the case of State of Gujarat vs. Gobar Rupa, 1995 (1) GLR 1 has based the determination of the market value for the lands under acquisition on previous award. It also appears from the record that the previous award was passed in Land Reference Case no. Land Reference Case No. 41 of 2000 and allied References as well as Land Reference Case No. 56 of 1999, wherein the lands of very same Village Nana Bhandariya were acquired for Vadi Irrigation Project. The fact remains that this Court in First Appeal no. 2825 of 2012 and allied appeals, as referred to hereinabove, has determined the market value for the lands acquired for the very public purpose i.e. Vadi Irrigation Project at Rs.65/- per sq. mtr. The record indicates that the lands situated at Village Nana Bhandariya acquired for the very public purpose and the lands under acquisition in the present appeals are situated in the same Village and all the factors which are required to be considered for determination of the market value are similar and therefore, the appellants would be entitled for the same market value as determined by this Court in First Appeal no. 2825 of 2012 and allied appeals. The respondents have not been able to point out any difference in the lands under acquisition in these appeals and the lands of Village Nana Bhandariya which were also acquired for same public purpose, which was the subject matter of First Appeal no. 2825 of 2012 and allied appeals. In opinion of this Court, the market value as determined by this Court in First Appeal no. 2825 of 2012 and allied appeals is the best exemplar for determining the market value of the lands under acquisition. 2825 of 2012 and allied appeals. In opinion of this Court, the market value as determined by this Court in First Appeal no. 2825 of 2012 and allied appeals is the best exemplar for determining the market value of the lands under acquisition. It is noteworthy that Reference Court while determining the market value at Rs.20/- per sq mtr for Jirayat Land and Rs.30/- per sq mtr for Bagayat Land has relied upon the previous award passed in Land Reference Case No. 41 of 2000 and other allied References and Land Reference Case No.56 of 1999 and other allied References, which were subject matter of First Appeal Nos. 2838 to 2848 of 2012 and 2849 to 2859 of 2012, which came to be partly allowed by the judgment of this Court in First Appeal No.2825 of 2012 and other allied matters. Hence, following the judgment of this Court in First Appeal no. 2825 of 2012 and allied appeals, the market value of the lands under acquisition in these appeals would be Rs.65 for Jirayat land and Rs.97.50 for Bagayat Land per sq. mtr. As the Reference Court was awarded Rs.20/- per sq mtr for Jirayat Land and Rs.30/- per sq mtr for Bagayat Land, the appellant would be entitled to additional compensation of Rs.45/- per sq mtr (Rs.65/- - Rs.20) for Jirayat Land and Rs.67.50 per sq mtr (Rs.97.50- Rs.30/-) for Bagayat Land along with all statutory benefits under the Act 11. The appeal is thus partly allowed. The impugned award stands modified to the aforesaid extent. However, there shall be no order as to costs.