ORDER : Since all the captioned appeals are cognate involving similar facts and same controversy in the issue, they were heard together and could be treated for disposal by this common order. 1.1 Heard learned advocate Mr.Nitin Amin for the appellant in all the appeals and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Manraj Barot for the respondent – State and its authorities. 2. Respective appeals are filed by the appellant-claimant concerned to challenge the judgment and award of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Rajula, whereby Reference of the claimants came to be rejected. For instance, the first captioned First Appeal No.2101 of 2021 is directed against judgment and award dated 21st June, 2018 passed by the court of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Rajula in Land Reference Case No.322 of 2017 rejecting the said land reference case. The relevant details of all the other appeals are given in the tabular form below. Sr. No. First Appeal No. Details of the impugned judgment and award 1 2102 of 2021 Judgment and order dated 21st June, 2018 of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Rajula in Land Reference Case No.320 of 2017. 2 2103 of 2021 Judgment and order dated 21st June, 2018 of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Rajula in Land Reference Case No.321 of 2017. 3 2104 of 2021 Judgment and order dated 21st June, 2018 of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Rajula in Land Reference Case No.324 of 2017. 4 2105 of 2021 Judgment and order dated 21st June, 2018 of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Rajula in Land Reference Case No.323 of 2017. 3. The basic facts as taken from the first captioned First Appeal, are that the land bearing Survey No.112/2 Paiki admeasuring 9726 Sq. Mtrs. at Village Bhakshi, Rajula Taluka of Amreli District owned and possessed by the appellant-claimant which was a piyat land, came to be acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act for the public purpose of Dhatarwadi-1 Irrigation Project. Notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 01st June, 2002 whereas Section 6 Notification was issued to culminate into the award of the Land Acquisition Officer dated 29th January, 2005 under Section 11 of the Act. 3.1 The claimant thereafter preferred Reference under Section 18 of the Act before the District Court as he was not satisfied with the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer which was Rs.30/- per Sq. Mtrs. 3.1 The claimant thereafter preferred Reference under Section 18 of the Act before the District Court as he was not satisfied with the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer which was Rs.30/- per Sq. Mtrs. 3.2 The Reference Court proceeded to consider the Reference. Written statement appears to have been filed at Exh.7. Thereafter issues were framed which were thus, (i) Whether the applicant proves that the amount paid by the Land Acquisition Officer for the land acquired by the Government is inadequate as alleged?, (ii) Whether applicant is entitled to additional compensation? If yes, how much?, (iii) Whether the opponents proves that the amount of compensation paid by the land acquisition officer for the land acquired by the government is adequate and therefore the applicant is not entitled to get additional compensation as alleged? and (iv) Whether the opponents prove that the present land reference case preferred by the applicant is barred by the limitation act and therefore not tenable before this court? All the issues were answered in negative by the Reference Court. 3.3 It was recorded that the land reference case came to be transferred to the court of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Rajula, whereupon the court had served notice to the claimant at Exh.27. It was recorded that the claimant however remained absent before the court and did not lead any oral or documentary evidence. Reference of the Supreme Court’s decision in Khazan Singh (dead) by L.Rs. v. Union of India [ AIR 2002 SC 726 ] was made to observed that Reference cannot be dismissed for want of presence of the claimant. Finally, the Reference Court rejected the Reference holding that the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer was adequate as the claimants did not choose to remain present in the Reference proceedings. 4. Following reasons were recorded, as quoted from judgment and award in Reference Case No.322 of 2017. “In present case claimant has not remained present for a long time before the Court to prove the facts of reference. Moreover claimant has not produced any documentary evidence and oral evidence to prove his case. Moreover, the opponent has filed his W/S vide Exh.7. Opponent No. 1 has passed order to pay Rs.600 per Sqr. Mtrs. Therefore, this amount is just and proper which is decided by revenue authority. Moreover claimant has not produced any documentary evidence and oral evidence to prove his case. Moreover, the opponent has filed his W/S vide Exh.7. Opponent No. 1 has passed order to pay Rs.600 per Sqr. Mtrs. Therefore, this amount is just and proper which is decided by revenue authority. So, this Court has observed that it is not just and proper to interfere in the order of opponent No. 1. Claimant has not proved facts of reference. So, claimant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for in his reference.” 5. It is undisputedly coming out that initially References were forwarded to the District Court, Amreli in the year 2005. They remained pending for trial before the court of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Amreli. When the Rajula Civil Court was established, References came to be transferred to the said court and were re-registered with new numbers. These facts are undisputedly revealed from the website also called e-court service. 5.1 It further transpires that the claimants requested for adjournment before the court at Rajula on 21st April, 2018. Summer vacation thereafter ensued in the courts, followed by the season of monsoon. It is stated that the appellants are agriculturist, therefore remained occupied in agricultural operations. It is for such reason that they could not lead the evidence. 5.2 It was on the very day, that is on 21st June, 2018, that the claimant was not present before the court, the Reference came to be rejected. This was learnt by the advocate subsequently when he went to inquiry about the pendency of the case to know that judgment and award was already declared on 21st June, 2018 rejecting the Reference. 6. The factum could not be disputed that the References were tried and rejected ex parte. When the court held that the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer was just and proper, it did not, admittedly, have the version of the side of the claimants. The appellants-claimants were agitating for quantum of compensation. The extension of reasonable opportunity to lead evidence was to be must to the aggrieved claimants-agriculturists when they were seeking hike in the compensation on various grounds. The appellants-claimants were agitating for quantum of compensation. The extension of reasonable opportunity to lead evidence was to be must to the aggrieved claimants-agriculturists when they were seeking hike in the compensation on various grounds. 6.1 It would be too technical on part of the court to throw away the Reference on the ground of absence of the appellant, more particularly in the circumstances when References were transferred to Rajula and there was nothing to suggest that the appellants were not interested in prosecuting the References for higher compensation. 6.2 Learned advocate for the appellants could successfully rely on the decision of this Court dated 03rd February, 2021 in Ishwarbhai Raghavjibhai v. Deputy Collector and Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation Irrigation Officer being First Appeal No.358 of 2021, wherein also the References were rejected on similar grounds. Learned Assistant Government Pleader could not dispute about existence of above order. 7. In the facts emerging as above, it is considered appropriate that the appellants-claimants are given opportunity to lead evidence. The Reference Court is required to decide the respective References afresh by permitting the parties including the claimants to lead their evidence and thereafter to determine the prayer for enhancement in the compensation on its own merits and on the basis of the evidence which may be lead. 8. In order that the court of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Rajulat at Amreli is enabled to reconsider the Reference to decide afresh after giving opportunity to lead evidence to the parties including the appellants, the judgment and award dated 21st June, 2018 in each of the First Appeal is set aside. 9. All the Reference proceedings as above are remanded to the Reference Court concerned to decide the same anew after giving opportunity to lead evidence to parties so as to complete the exercise preferably within six months from the date of receipt of the present order. 10. It goes without saying that this Court has neither gone into not expressed any opinion on merits of the case of the either side. 11. All the First Appeals are allowed and disposed of in the aforesaid terms.