JUDGMENT : R.M. CHHAYA, J. 1. This appeals are directed against the common judgment and award dated 19.12.2017 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Amreli in Land Reference Cases No. 79 of 1999 to 100 of 1999 under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure r/w Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act. 2. First Appeal No.1570 of 2020 arises out of Land Reference Case No.97 of 1999, First Appeal No.1571 of 2020 arises out of Land Reference Case No.87 of 1999, First Appeal No.1572 of 2020 arises out of Land Reference Case No.99 of 1999 and First Appeal No.1573 of 2020 arises out of Land Reference Case No.90 of 1999 and First Appeal No.1574 of 2020 arises out of Land Reference Case No.94 of 1999. All the Land Reference Cases were heard together and same set of evidence was adduced by the appellants before the Reference Court and hence all the appeals were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment and order. First Appeal Nos. 1570 to 1574 of 2020 are admitted and taken up for final hearing forthwith along with First Appeal No4791 of 2018. Ms. Megha Chitaliya, learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of notice of admission on behalf of the respondent State in all the appeals. The lands belonging to the appellants are situated at Village Mangvapal, Tal & Dist. Amreli. The lands of the appellants have been 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 5.10.1995 and the declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published on 18.3.1996 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 14.5.1998. 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. 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 Cases as referred to above before the Court of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Amreli. The other land owners, whose lands situated at Village Mangvapal, 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. 79 to 100 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. 79 of 1999 as the lead Land Reference Case. The claimants also adduced oral evidence by way of affidavit of one of the land owners Shri Himmatbhai Jivabhai at Exh.23, and affidavit of Mukeshbhai Kalubhai Korat at Exh.104 affidavit of Manandbhai Danabhai at Exh.62.The appellants – claimants adduced documentary evidences below Exhs.26 to 54, Exh.58, Exh.101 to 103, Exh.112 to 114 and Exh.123, as enumerated by the Reference Court in the impugned judgment and award at Paragraph 12. The acquiring body also produced the documents evidence at Exh. 61 and 127. The State and acquiring body did not adduce any oral evidence. 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. 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 Mangvapal 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 Mangvapal 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. 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 award Exh.127 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 Mangvapal, the Reference Court has rightly relied upon the previous award at Exh.127 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, copies of which were supplied by the learned counsel for the parties, 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 Mangvapal, 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. “31. Two groups of appeals are comprised of those cases, wherein the lands of village Mangvapal came to be acquired. 40. “31. Two groups of appeals are comprised of those cases, wherein the lands of village Mangvapal came to be acquired. 40. The other group of appeals arising out of land reference cases in respect of lands of village Mangvapal came to be acquired for the project in question is First Appeals No.1546 of 2018 to 1550 of 2018. Vide order dated 28.6.2018, such appeals came to be admitted and were ordered to be heard with First Appeal No.229 of 2016 and other connected appeals and that is how, these appeals were heard together. 41. The facts of these cases are that the notification under section 4 of the Act came to be published in the Government Gazette on 19.1.2004, declaration under section 6 of the Act came to be published on 27.1.2005 and the award under section 11 of the Act came to be made on 6.10.2005 determining the compensation at the rate of Rs.150/- per are for bagayat land and Rs.700/- per are for jirayat land. Before the Reference Court, on behalf of the claimants, one Becharbhai Gokalbhai Kachadiya has been examined at Exhibit 13. The witness has deposed that their lands are very fertile and are agricultural lands giving similar yields. All lands have irrigation and bore well facility and agriculture is carried out through irrigation and in one year, they are obtaining two to three crops of groundnut, millet, cotton, maize, barley, wheat, rajko, etc. At the time when the notification under section 4 of the Act came to be published, they were obtaining yield of Rs.80,000/- per vigha per annum, out of which half the amount went towards expenditure and the balance was clear profit. He has deposed that their village has facility of tar roads, electricity and water supply as well as hospital, school, milk society, telephone, bus and railway. Their village is at a distance of three to four kilometres from Amreli, Nana Machiyala and Giriya, and at present, the areas near Amreli, Nana Machiyala and Giriya are developing a lot and their village also falls within such developing area. 41.1 The witness has further deposed that village Nana Machiyala is situated at a distance of three kilometres from their village and that the lands of Nana Machiyala were acquired for the purpose of Chital Amreli Bypass Road. 41.1 The witness has further deposed that village Nana Machiyala is situated at a distance of three kilometres from their village and that the lands of Nana Machiyala were acquired for the purpose of Chital Amreli Bypass Road. Against the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, the claimants had approached the Reference Court, which had determined the market value at the rate of Rs.240/- per square metre, which had been upheld by the High Court in the first appeal filed by the State Government and the Supreme Court had also upheld the said order. He has also deposed that the lands of village Giriya situated near their village had been acquired for the Thebi Irrigation Scheme, wherein the Reference Court had awarded Rs.300/- per square metre, against which the State Government had filed first appeal before the High Court, where the compensation was reduced to Rs.150/- per square metre. The witness has further deposed that the lands which are acquired for the Vadi Irrigation Project situated in Amreli, Mangvapal and other villages are situated on the Amreli Jetpur State Highway. Near the acquired lands of village Mangvapal, there are industries like Ginning Mill, Milk Dairy, and Plastic Factory, etc. The lands of Amreli and Mangvapal which are acquired for the Vadi Irrigation Project, are situated at a distance of only three to four kilometres from Amreli District Headquarters and town, and certain lands out of the acquired lands of village Mangvapal, approximately 900 acres, have been reserved for industrial purpose in the year 1972 and a huge educational campus of the State Government as well as 66 KV Station of the G.E.B. has been set up for development of industries. Thus, the acquired lands being situated in the developing areas are highly valuable. The witness has also deposed that their lands acquired for the Vadi Irrigation Project and the acquired lands of village Nana Machiyala and Giriya are similar in fertility and are of a similar type and give valuable yield and the acquired lands are situated in the surrounding area within a distance of three kilometres thereof. The acquired lands are situated on the boundaries of Nana Machiyala and Giriya and are near the developing area of Amreli. The acquired lands and the boundaries of both the villages are near each other and both the villages are developed villages. The acquired lands are situated on the boundaries of Nana Machiyala and Giriya and are near the developing area of Amreli. The acquired lands and the boundaries of both the villages are near each other and both the villages are developed villages. 41.2 The witness has been cross-examined regarding the award and the matters pending in the High Court against the other awards. However, there is no cross-examination as regards the facts deposed by the witness regarding proximity to village Giriya, Nana Machiyala and Amreli and as regards the lands being similar in fertility, yield as well as the facilities available in the village. By way of documentary evidence, the witness has produced four judgments on record. 42. On behalf of the respondents, one Shri Pravinbhai Ambabhai Govani has been examined at Exhibit 26. A perusal of the deposition of this witness, who was a Deputy Executive Engineer, reveals that the same is more in the nature of a written statement dealing with the facts stated by the claimants’ witness in his examination-in-chief. Thus, a novel approach has been adopted inasmuch as instead of contradicting the claimants’ witness in his cross-examination, the facts deposed by him in his examination-in-chief are sought to be contradicted through the examination-in-chief of the Government witness. A perusal of the examination-in-chief of the witness reveals that as regards the basis for the determination of market value, all that has been stated is that keeping in view the sale deeds of the last five years and considering the nature of the lands as to whether they are irrigated or non-irrigated lands and affording an opportunity of submitting objections to the claimants who did not raise any objections, the market value of the acquired lands was determined at Rs.700/- per are for jirayat land and Rs.1050/- per are for bagayat land keeping in view the location of the land and the period of acquisition. 42.1 In the entire testimony of the witness, there is not even a whisper as regards the sale deeds on the basis of which the award was made, nor have such sale deeds been produced on record. The respondents had placed reliance upon the award made in Land Reference Case No.111/1999 arising out of the same project and the lands of the same village, viz., Mangvapal. The respondents had placed reliance upon the award made in Land Reference Case No.111/1999 arising out of the same project and the lands of the same village, viz., Mangvapal. In the cross-examination of this witness, it has been elicited that he has taken charge as Deputy Executive Engineer, Irrigation Sub-Division-2, Amreli, since the last seven to eight months by way of additional charge. He has admitted that he was not holding this post at the time when the lands came to be acquired. He has admitted that he has not seen the acquired lands. He has admitted that the entire process had been carried out by the Deputy Collector and has voluntarily stated that on behalf of the acquiring body, they had furnished the necessary information to the Deputy Collector. He has stated that he had seen Mangvapal village and has denied that Mangvapal is situated near Giriya. He has deposed that the distance between Thebi Dam and Vadi Dam is approximately eight to ten kilometres. 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. 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. 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. 59. Since no other reliable evidence has been adduced by either side which could be made the basis for determination of the market value of the acquired lands, the court deems it fit to adopt the market value as determined by the Supreme Court in case of Group I in the above decision. While it is true that the lands falling within Group I were nearer Amreli than the acquired lands, insofar as such lands are concerned, the Supreme court has observed that they were to go under submergence and there was no scope of further development, which is not the case insofar as the acquired lands in this case are concerned. The Land Acquisition Officer in the award itself has mentioned that there is a tremendous increase in the yield of agricultural products and that the value of the land is increasing day-by-day, which factor is required to be kept in mind while determining the market value. 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, it transpires that the Reference Court has not believed the case of the appellants that the lands acquired situated at Village Mangvapal are 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, it transpires that the Reference Court has not believed the case of the appellants that the lands acquired situated at Village Mangvapal are 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 Exh.127. It also appears from the record that the previous award at Exh.127 was passed in Land Reference Case no. 111 of 1999, wherein the lands of very same Village Mangvapal were acquired for Vadi Irrigation Project and based upon the same, has determined the market value of the lands at Rs.34 per sq. mtr. for Bagayat land and Rs.24/- per sq. mtr. for Jirayat land. Even though the reliance placed on previous award at Exh.138, is not erroneous, the fact remains that this Court in First Appeal no. 2825 of 2012 and allied appeals arising out of LAR, 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 Mangvapal were 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 Mangvapal which were also acquired for same public purpose, which was the subject matter of First Appeal no. 2825 of 2012 and allied appeals. 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 Mangvapal which were also acquired for same public purpose, which was the subject matter of First Appeal no. 2825 of 2012 and allied appeals. It was also pointed out by the learned advocate for the appellant during the course of hearing that the State Government has accepted the judgment of First Appeal No.2825 of 2012 and the claimants/land owners have already been paid compensation as per the market value so fixed by this Court. 11. Considering the totality of facts and upon re-appreciation of evidence on record and reasoning given by Reference 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. Exh.127 is a previous award passed by the Reference Court in Land Reference Case Nos. 111 of 1999 to 133 of 1999 and the same were subject matter of First Appeal Nos. 229 of 2016 to 246 of 2016, which has been partly allowed by the common judgment and order passed in First Appeal No.2825 of 2012 and allied appeals. On that count also, appellants would be entitled to market value as determined by this Court in First Appeal No.2825 of 2012 and allied appeals. 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 appellants 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. 12. The appeals are thus partly allowed. The impugned award stands modified to the aforesaid extent. However, there shall be no order as to costs.