JUDGMENT : A.S. SUPEHIA, J. 1. In the above group of appeals, the land acquired of Village Ruvavi, District Patan is subject matter of challenge by the claimants. The State Authority has issued Section 4 notification of the Land Acquisition Act (for short “the Act”) on 31.10.2002, Section 6 notification of the Act was issued on 06.02.2003 and the award was declared on 20.09.2010 and 29.09.2010. The Land Acquisition Officer has awarded an amount of Rs. 9/- per sq. mtr. for the lands acquired of Village Ruvavi. The same was subject matter of challenge before the reference court by the claimants and the reference court after examination of the documentary as well as oral evidence awarded an amount of Rs. 23.45/- per sq. mtr. 2. The present group of appeals pertain to the judgments and awards passed by the reference Court on 20.09.2010 in LAR Nos. 2054, 2055, 2064, 2067, 2068, 2071 and 2077 of 2006 and on 29.09.2010 in LAR Nos. 1995, 1998, 2002, 2012, 2013 and 2014 of 2006. The Section 4 notification of the Act was issued on 31.10.2002. 3. Learned advocate Mr. Prajapati appearing for the claimants has submitted that the reference Court has committed an error by awarding an additional compensation of Rs. 23.45, though the learned judge has considered the acquisition of the lands of Village Unava, wherein the additional compensation of Rs. 288/- was awarded, for which Section 4 notification was also issued on 26.07.2002. It is submitted by him that the judgment and award passed in case of Village Unava was further challenged by the State Authority in First Appeal No. 1659 of 2006 and allied matters and by the judgment and order dated 02.07.2007, the first appeals were dismissed and hence, the additional compensation of Rs. 288/- granted for the land acquired of Village Unava has become final. It is submitted that the SLP against the aforesaid judgment and order passed by the Division Bench was dismissed by the order dated 14.11.2008 on the ground of delay as well as on merits. 3.1 Learned advocate Mr. Prajapati has submitted that since the aforesaid additional amount of compensation awarded for the lands acquired at Village Unava has become final, for which the notification is also issued on the same date, the claimants are entitled for the additional amount of compensation of Rs. 255.55/-. 3.2 Learned advocate Mr. 3.1 Learned advocate Mr. Prajapati has submitted that since the aforesaid additional amount of compensation awarded for the lands acquired at Village Unava has become final, for which the notification is also issued on the same date, the claimants are entitled for the additional amount of compensation of Rs. 255.55/-. 3.2 Learned advocate Mr. Prajapati has submitted that the Village Unava is adjoining Village to Village Ruvavi and hence, the reasoning averred by the reference Court in the present cases, is absolutely vague since the amount could not have been reduced to the extent of Rs. 23.45/- as compared to Rs. 288/- per sq. mtr. of Village Unava. It is thus, submitted that the appeals filed by the claimants may be allowed. 4. Per contra, learned AGP Mr. Barot appearing in the first appeals filed by the State Authority against the very same judgment and award, has submitted that the amount awarded by the reference Court with regard to the additional compensation of Rs. 23.45/- per sq. mtr. is required to be quashed and set aside since the reference Court has fallen in error by placing reliance on the additional award of compensation, for which the lands acquired at Village Unava. It is submitted that the distance between the Village Ruvavi and Unava is 6.3 kilometers. He has further submitted that the Village Unava is a developed village through a State Highway passes and it also near the railway track. Thus, he has submitted that the reliance is placed by the reference Court for comparing the award for the additional amount of compensation was uncalled for and hence, the impugned award of the reference Court is required to be quashed and set aside. 5. I have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. 6. As noticed hereinabove, the present matters pertain to the lands acquired, of Village Ruvavi, Taluka Unjha, District Mehsana, for which the Section 4 notification of the Act has been issued on 31.10.2002. The Special Land Acquisition Officer declared the award under Section 11 of the Act and paid Rs. 9.00/- per sq. mtr. which was subject matter of scrutiny before the land reference Court. 7. This Court has perused the judgment and award passed by the land reference Court. After considering the documentary evidence as well as the oral evidence, the reference Court has awarded the additional amount of compensation of Rs. 9.00/- per sq. mtr. which was subject matter of scrutiny before the land reference Court. 7. This Court has perused the judgment and award passed by the land reference Court. After considering the documentary evidence as well as the oral evidence, the reference Court has awarded the additional amount of compensation of Rs. 23.45/- per sq. mtr. Being aggrieved, the claimants as well as the State Authority have filed the present first appeals. It is not in dispute that the documentary evidence, which was produced by the claimants in support of their claims, at Exh.36, which pertains to the award of land acquired of Village Unava, Taluka Unjha, District Mehsana. A certificate issued by the gram panchayat at Exh.48 showing distance between villages was also considered. The reliance was also placed on the judgment of this Court passed in First Appeal No. 1659 of 2006. 8. This Court has perused the relevant material and the documents. It is not disputed that the Village Unava, on which reliance is placed by both the respective parties, is situated at almost approximately 6 kilometers away from Village Ruvavi. The lands acquired of Village Unava were subject matter of challenge before the land reference court as well as this Court. The additional amount of compensation awarded to the claimants for the lands acquired at Village Unava, for which Section 4 notification was issued on 26.07.2002, has been finalized and fixed at Rs. 288/- per sq. mtr. In the present case, the Section 4 notification is of 31.10.2002 i.e. almost of the same period. The Division Bench in the judgment dated 02.07.2007 passed in First Appeal No. 1659 of 2006 in case village Unava has held thus: “6. On appreciation of evidence adduced by the parties, the Reference Court was of the opinion that previous award of the Reference Court, the lands of village Unjha, relating to was a relevant piece of evidence and furnished good guidance for the purpose of determining market value of the lands acquired in the instant case. On appreciation of evidence adduced by the parties, the Reference Court was of the opinion that previous award of the Reference Court, the lands of village Unjha, relating to was a relevant piece of evidence and furnished good guidance for the purpose of determining market value of the lands acquired in the instant case. Notification under The Reference Court noticed that Section 4(1) of the Act was published in the official gazette on March 15, 1992 for the purpose of acquiring the lands of village Unjha whereas in the instant case notification under section 4 of the Act was published in the official Gazette on July 26, 2002 and, therefore, in view of gap of time between the two, the claimants were entitled to the benefit of rise in prices of lands not at the rate of 10% per annum but lumpsum at the rate of 25% per annum. In the ultimate analysis, the Reference Court had awarded additional amount of compensation to the claimants at the rate Rs. 277/- per sq. mt. for their acquired lands of by the impugned common award, giving rise to the instant appeals. 9. Here in this case the claimants had relied upon certificate dated September 20, 2004 issued by the Talati-cum-Mantri, Unava, Taluka Unjha to indicate that the distance between village Unava and village Unjha was nil and that several industrial units, market yards, banks, etc. were situated in village Unava. The Reference Court, without assigning good reasons, has not exhibited this document, which is a relevant piece of evidence. Therefore, the same is ordered to be exhibited and given Exhibit No. 46A. Similarly, the claimants had produced copy of order dated May 20, 2001 to indicate that land admeasuring 2735 sq. mt. of Survey No. 303/1 situated at village Unava was disposed of by District Panchayat vide order dated January 1, 1999 at the rate of Rs. 565/- per sq. mt. There was no good reason for the Reference Court not to exhibit this document. Therefore, the same is ordered to be exhibited and given exhibit No. 46/B. 10. The relevancy of the previous award of the Reference Court relating to lands of village Unjha stands satisfactorily established by reliable testimony of the witness examined on behalf of the claimants. Further, the certificate which is ordered to be exhibited by this Court indicates that the distance between Unava and Unjha is nil. The relevancy of the previous award of the Reference Court relating to lands of village Unjha stands satisfactorily established by reliable testimony of the witness examined on behalf of the claimants. Further, the certificate which is ordered to be exhibited by this Court indicates that the distance between Unava and Unjha is nil. If the order dated May 20, 2001 passed by the District Panchayat is taken into consideration, the claimants would be entitled to more compensation than what is awarded to them by the Reference Court because benefit of rise in prices of the lands at the rate of 10% per annum will have to be worked out roughly for a period of 10 years. Similarly, if the allotment of 2735 sq. mt. of land of Survey No. 303/1 is taken into account, the claimants would be entitled to more compensation than awarded by the Reference Court. It is well settled principle of law that previous award of the Reference Court relating to a village, which has attained finality, can be relied upon as a good piece of evidence for the purpose of determining the market value of similar lands acquired subsequently from the adjoining village. As observed earlier, it is satisfactorily established by the claimants that the lands which were previously acquired from village Unjha were similar in all respects to the lands acquired from village Unava. It may be mentioned that previous award of the Reference Court relating to the lands of village Unjha rendered in Land Acquisition Reference No. 248 of 1997 to 350 of 1997 was challenged before the High Court in First Appeal Nos. 2147 to 2249 of 2004 and those appeals have been dismissed by the court vide judgment dated July 2,2007. Thus, the previous award of the Reference Court relating to the lands of village Unjha has attained finality. Under the circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the Reference Court did not commit any error in placing reliance upon previous award of the Reference Court relating to the lands of village Unjha for the purpose of determining market value of the lands acquired in the instant case. The amount of compensation awarded by the Reference Court in these cases is not on higher side so as to warrant interference by this court in the instant appeals. The amount of compensation awarded by the Reference Court in these cases is not on higher side so as to warrant interference by this court in the instant appeals. On re-appreciation of evidence adduced by the parties before the Reference Court, this Court is of the opinion that correct findings of facts have been recorded by the Reference Court to which well settled principles of law have been applied. The learned counsels for the appellants could not persuade this Court to take a view different than the one taken by the Reference Court on appreciation of evidence adduced before it. Thus, the appeals, which lack merits, deserve dismissal.” Thus, the Division Bench has confirmed the total compensation of Rs. 288 for Village Unava. 9. It is asserted by the learned AGP that the Village Ruvavi is on the interior side of Taluka Unjha, whereas Unava is a well developed Village having more facilities then Village Ruvavi. It is submitted that Village Ruvavi is approximately 6 kilometers away from Village Unava. 10. At this stage, it would be apposite to refer to the observations made by the Division Bench in the judgment dated 04.05.2011 passed in First Appeal No. 1377 of 2011. The same reads as under: “7. In both the matters, the Reference Court has lost sight of the important aspect that Unjha is a municipal area whereas Brahmanwada is a gram panchayat area. In a case where the valuation is made of the land which is falling in the municipal area, it cannot be compared at para with the land situated at village area even if the boundary of municipal area and the boundary of the said village area may be touching to one another. The reason is that there would be basic difference in the infrastructural facilities and the amenities in the municipal area in comparison to the gram panchayat area. For municipal area, there will be facilities of water, light, transportation, road, school, etc. which may not be available in the gram panchayat area. The reason is that there would be basic difference in the infrastructural facilities and the amenities in the municipal area in comparison to the gram panchayat area. For municipal area, there will be facilities of water, light, transportation, road, school, etc. which may not be available in the gram panchayat area. Further, even if it is considered that since the area is adjacent to each other, there was more development in gram panchayat area, which is adjacent to the municipal area, it appears to us that if it is to be examined for the purpose of tracing the appropriate valuation, such valuation will be minimum 30% less in comparison to the value of the land in the municipal area. It appears that the Reference Court has totally lost sight of the said aspect and has considered the valuation of the land at par with Unjha which is a municipal area. The learned counsel for the original claimants is also not in a position to show any evidence to the contrary save and except that the village of Brahmanwada is touching to Unjha city. In our view, would not make much difference as observed earlier and the difference of valuation by 30% at least would continue even after the boundary of the village attached to the municipal area since the basic difference of various facilities and infrastructure and development between the municipal area and the gram panchayat area would continue.” 10.1 The Division Bench has reduced 30% of the amount of compensation from the amount, which has been awarded to the lands acquired in municipalities and nagarpalika as compared to the land situated in villages. 11. The topography of the entire Taluka Unjha, District Mehsana reveals that the Village Unava is adjacent to Village Surpura and Village Ruvavi. The difference between Unvav and Surpura is 3.6 kilometers. Village Ruvavi falls in Patan Distirct and is 6 kilometers away from Unava, but 2.7 kilometers away from Surpura. 12. Today, by the judgment and order of even date, this Court has determined the additional compensation of Rs. 245 for the lands acquired of Village Surpura after considering the amount determined by the Division Bench in the case of adjacent village Unava at Rs. 288. The amount of additional compensation of village Surpura is determined by applying the analogy of the reduction as envisaged by the Division Bench in the aforenoted judgment dated 04.05.2011. 245 for the lands acquired of Village Surpura after considering the amount determined by the Division Bench in the case of adjacent village Unava at Rs. 288. The amount of additional compensation of village Surpura is determined by applying the analogy of the reduction as envisaged by the Division Bench in the aforenoted judgment dated 04.05.2011. This Court has reduced the compensation of Rs. 288/- by 15% looking to the topography and status of both the villages Unava and Surpura. In the considered opinion that if 10% amount if is decreased from Rs. 245/- (i.e. compensation of lands of Village Surpura), the same will suffice, since it is noticed that the Village Ruvavi is far away from Village Surpura, at the distance of 2.7 kilometers and hence, it would be appropriate to decrease 10% amount from additional compensation of Rs. 245/- determined by this Court for the land acquired at Village Surpura for which Section 4 notification was issued on 16.11.2002, whereas in the present case, notification has been issued on 31.10.2002, hence, the total additional compensation would be Rs. 220 (i.e decrease of 10% from 245) The reference court has awarded Rs. 23.45 per sq. mtr. plus, the Land Acquisition Officer has awarded Rs. 9/- the total would come to Rs. 32.45, which is required to be deducted from the amount of Rs. 220.5 - 32.45 = 188.05, which is rounded of as Rs. 188/-. Thus, the claimants are entitled to the additional compensation of Rs. 188/- per square meter along with statutory benefits under Sections 23(1)(a) and 23(2) of the Act and interest under Section 28 of the Act and accordingly, the compensation is enhanced. 13. The judgment and award passed by the reference Court is modified to the aforesaid extent. The amount shall be deposited with the Reference Court within a period of five months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment and order and it shall be disbursed to the claimants after due verification. 14. So far as the First Appeal Nos. 1867, 1868, 1869, 1870, 1871, 2355 of 2021 and 2745, 2746, 2747, 2748, 2749, 2750 of 2022 are concerned, the claimants would not be entitled for interest for the period of delay as per the orders passed by this Court, while condoning the delay. 15. The first appeals are allowed to the aforesaid extent. 16. 1867, 1868, 1869, 1870, 1871, 2355 of 2021 and 2745, 2746, 2747, 2748, 2749, 2750 of 2022 are concerned, the claimants would not be entitled for interest for the period of delay as per the orders passed by this Court, while condoning the delay. 15. The first appeals are allowed to the aforesaid extent. 16. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Court forthwith.