ORDER : 1. All the captioned appeals are arising out the judgment dated 21.06.2018 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Rajula and therefore, the challenge being common, all the appeals are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The details of the first appeals vis-a-vis the reference cases are set out herein for ready reference: (i) First Appeal No. 4535 of 2022 is arising out of Land Reference Case No. 327 of 2017. (ii) First Appeal No. 4536 of 2022 is arising out of Land Reference Case No. 326 of 2017. (iii) First Appeal No. 4537 of 2022 is arising out of Land Reference Case No. 332 of 2017. (iv) First Appeal No. 4538 of 2022 is arising out of Land Reference Case No. 328 of 2017. 3. Admit. Mr. Ashutosh Dave, learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of notice of admission on behalf of the respondents. 4. Mr. Nitin Amin, learned Advocate appearing for the appellants, in all the appeals, at the outset, has placed on record the common oral order dated 10.08.2021 passed by the co-ordinate bench in First Appeal No. 2132 of 2021 and other allied matters. It is submitted that all the twenty land reference cases were filed and were heard together and disposed of by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Rajula. Against the judgment and order, 16 appeals were filed before this Court and this Court, accepting the contentions has allowed the First Appeals vide order dated 10.08.2021 whereby, the co-ordinate bench, has remanded the matter to the reference court to decide the same afresh, after giving opportunity to lead evidence to the parties. It is submitted that it is not in dispute that the present group of first appeals, are also arising out of and are identical to the group of Land Reference Case Nos. 325 of 2017 to 339 of 2017. It is therefore submitted that the present group of appeals may also be decided in line with the said order. It is also submitted that upon remand, the land references, have been decided by the Court concerned and the amount of compensation has been enhanced. 4.1. It is submitted that initially, the references were forwarded to the district Amreli in the year 2005 and since then were pending for trial in the Court of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Amreli. It is also submitted that upon remand, the land references, have been decided by the Court concerned and the amount of compensation has been enhanced. 4.1. It is submitted that initially, the references were forwarded to the district Amreli in the year 2005 and since then were pending for trial in the Court of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Amreli. Owing to the establishment of taluka courts, the references were transferred to Rajula Civil Court and were re-registered, which fact, is strengthened by the details available on the website. It is submitted that on 21.04.2018, request was made for adjournment and thereafter, owing to the summer vacation, the civil courts were closed. The appellants being agriculturists were engaged and occupied with agricultural activities during the season of monsoon as agricultural activities are the only source of their livelihood. Owing to certain confusion and misunderstanding, on the next date of hearing, the appellants could not remain present and the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Rajula rejected the reference for want of evidence. It is thereafter, upon inquiry, that it came to the notice of the appellants that the references have been dismissed. It is submitted that the course adopted by the learned Judge, dismissing the reference case, is unusual inasmuch as, the lands have been acquired on permanent basis which, would deprive the appellants of their livelihood. It is submitted that in various decisions rendered by this Court, the course adopted by the court concerned has been held to be impermissible. 4.2. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Khazan Singh (Dead) by LRs. vs. Union of India, AIR 2002 SC 726 . It is submitted that the Apex Court has held and observed that the reference before the Civil Court and thereafter, non-participation of the claimants when the matter is taken up, it would be impermissible for the Court concerned to pass the order for dismissal of reference. It is therefore urged that considering the fact that identical appeals have been decided by this Court so also, the course adopted by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, the present first appeals deserve to be allowed and the matter be remanded to the Court concerned, so as to decide it afresh, after offering an opportunity to the appellants-claimants to lead evidence. 5. Mr. 5. Mr. Ashutosh Dave, learned Assistant Government Pleader could not dispute or distinguish the facts so also, the applicability of the order dated 10.08.2021 to the present group of first appeals. 6. Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties and perused the documents available on record. 7. Pertinently, the group of land reference cases were filed before the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Rajula against the common award passed by the land acquisition officer for the acquisition of the land for the purpose of Dhatarwadi-1 Irrigation Project, District-Amreli. The group of reference cases came to be decided by the aforestated judgment and order dated 21.06.2018 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Rajula whereby, the reference cases, were rejected on the ground that the appellants-claimants have not remained present for a long time. So also have not produced any documentary evidence and oral evidence to prove their cases. The learned Principal Senior Civil Judge was of the opinion that the order to pay Rs. 600/- per sq. mts. by the land acquisition officer is just and proper and does not deserve to be interfered with. Against the said judgment and order dated 21.06.2018, sixteen first appeals were filed together with the civil applications for condonation of delay. The application for condonation of delay were allowed so also the first appeals. The first appeal no. 2132 of 2021 was arising out of land reference case no. 336 of 2017. The co-ordinate bench has passed the order dated 10.08.2021 in first appeal nos. 2132 of 2021 and other allied matters. This Court, has observed thus: “4. Following reasons were recorded, as quoted from judgment and award in Reference Case No. 336 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. 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. 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. 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. 6.1 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 vs. 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.” 8. The said references, as has been reported by Mr. Nitin Amin, learned Advocate upon remand, have been decided and the amount of compensation has been enhanced. 9. The present first appeals are arising out of the very same reference cases and facts being identical, the present first appeals also require to be allowed along the lines of the common oral order dated 10.08.2021. Nitin Amin, learned Advocate upon remand, have been decided and the amount of compensation has been enhanced. 9. The present first appeals are arising out of the very same reference cases and facts being identical, the present first appeals also require to be allowed along the lines of the common oral order dated 10.08.2021. The appellant in ground (B) has stated thus: “(B) That initially references were forwarded to the district court Amreli in 2005 and were pending for trial in the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Amreli. Due to commencement of Taluka courts the references were transferred to Rajula civil Court, and all references were re-registered. These facts are revealed from the website named e-Court Services. The claimants on 21.04.2018 sought for an adjournment before the civil court at Rajula. Thereafter due to summer vacation civil courts were closed. The appellant is agriculturist and as the monsoon was approaching he was occupied in hi only source of livelihood i.e. claimant could not remain present before the Court for evidence and on the same day (21.06.2018) the learned Principal senior Civil Judge Rajula rejected the reference for want of evidence. When the advocates of the claimants had gone to inquire in July, 2018 about the status of the reference, it came to their knowledge that the reference court had already declared its award and judgment on 21.06.2018 by closing the right of the claimants to produce evidence.” 10. It is not in dispute that the land reference cases, came to be decided against the appellants ex-parte and therefore, it would be in the interest of all the concerned, that the matters are remanded to be decided afresh, inasmuch as, it would be impermissible to the learned Judge to dispose of the land reference cases in such a cursory manner more particularly, when the valuable lands, the only source of livelihood, of the agriculturists are being acquired on permanent basis. Therefore, the ends of justice would meet if the appellants-claimants are allowed an opportunity to lead evidence, with a further direction to the learned Judge to decide the respective references afresh, permitting the parties including the claimants to lead their evidence and thereafter, to consider the request for enhancement on its own merits. Therefore, the ends of justice would meet if the appellants-claimants are allowed an opportunity to lead evidence, with a further direction to the learned Judge to decide the respective references afresh, permitting the parties including the claimants to lead their evidence and thereafter, to consider the request for enhancement on its own merits. Therefore, in view of the aforementioned discussion and the fact that the appeal is remitted, the judgment and award dated 21.06.2018 in each of the first appeals, is set aside, the respective land reference cases are restored to its original file. 11. The Court concerned shall decide the same afresh which exercise shall be completed preferably within a period six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 12. Needless to say that this Court has neither gone nor expressed any opinion on merits of the case. 13. All the first appeals succeed and are accordingly allowed and disposed of in the aforesaid terms.