JUDGMENT : A.J. Desai, J. 1. By way of present appeals under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter to be referred as “the Act”) read with Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 the original opponent No.2/Acquiring Body- Oil And Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter to be referred as “O.N.G.C.”), the acquiring body has challenged the judgment and award dated 30.11.2019 passed by learned 4th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Mehsana in Land Acquisition Reference Case Nos.1 to 2 of 2016, by which, the Reference Court has enhanced the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Collector from Rs.62/- per sq. mtr. to Rs.700/- per sq. mtr. (additional amount of Rs.638/- per sq. mtr.). 2. The appeal came to be admitted by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 15.03.2021. As per the order passed in civil application of the same date, the amount has been deposited before the Reference Court and subsequently as per the order dated 20.07.2021, passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, 50% of the amount awarded has been disbursed among the respondent/original land owners. Record and proceedings have also been called for and have reached to this Court. 3. The short facts arising from the record are as under: 3.1 Present appellant- O.N.G.C. intended to construct a tube well No. LJDE for its project at village- Langhanj, Taluka & District- Mehsana and accordingly, the Land Acquisition Officer issued a Notification under Section 4 of the Act on 17.05.2010. As provided under the Act, the Notification No.6, under Section 6 of the Act was issued within two years i.e. 12.11.2010. The Land Acquisition Officer determined the price of land at Rs.62/- per sq. mtr. and declared award under Section 11 on 07.09.2012. 3.2 The original land owners/opponent, whose lands were sought to be acquired sought reference under Section 18 of the Act and accordingly, the Collector referred the matter to competent civil court at Mehsana. The claimants sought an enhancement compensation to the tune of Rs.2,000/- per sq. mtrs. mtr. and declared award under Section 11 on 07.09.2012. 3.2 The original land owners/opponent, whose lands were sought to be acquired sought reference under Section 18 of the Act and accordingly, the Collector referred the matter to competent civil court at Mehsana. The claimants sought an enhancement compensation to the tune of Rs.2,000/- per sq. mtrs. mainly on the ground that the Government had acquired a piece of land of village- Langhanj in the year-2013 for construction in response to a demand made by Mehsana District Co-operative Bank and as per the District Land Valuation Committee headed by the Collector for determining the market price of the village had come to the conclusion holding the price of the said land as Rs.2,000/- per sq. mtr. The claimant has also relied upon the judgment delivered by the Reference Court and confirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court, in which, the land of nearby village namely Gozaria was acquired for Sujalam Sufalam Irrigation Scheme and the date of notification issued under Section 4 for the said village Gozaria was also of the year-2009. The claim was opposed by the present appellant. 3.3 The original claimants have examined two witnesses whereas respondent has examined one witness. Several documentary evidences were produced by both the parties. The Reference Court only relied upon the report of District Land Valuation Committee, Mehsana wherein the price of Langhanj village was fixed at Rs.2,000/- per sq. mtr. in the year-2013. The Reference Court noticed that the land which is sought to be acquired was agricultural land and was a meager size and hence reduced the same to 50%. Thereafter, considering the valuation relates to year-2013 and the notification issued in the case on hand of the year-2009, further deducted 30% and ultimately came to the conclusion that the correct price of the land acquired would be Rs. 700/- per sq. mtr and not Rs.62/- per sq. mtr. as awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. Hence, this Appeal at instance of acquiring body against the enhancement of compensation. 4. Learned advocate Mr. 700/- per sq. mtr and not Rs.62/- per sq. mtr. as awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. Hence, this Appeal at instance of acquiring body against the enhancement of compensation. 4. Learned advocate Mr. Ajay R. Mehta appearing for the appellant has vehemently submitted that the learned Judge has committed error in comparing the land of the village for which report was produced at Exh.24, at the instance of the claimants since the location of the land, size of the land and nature of the land are totally different as compare to the land sought to be acquired. He would further submit that in case of the land, which was examined by the Committee pertains to “granted land” and it was comparatively of small area admeasuring only 1452.94 sq. mtrs. The land, for which, the price was determined by the Committee is of village- Langhanj and is non-agricultural land, and therefore, Reference Court ought not to have considered the said report as comparable instance and ought not to have decided the value based on such instance 4.1 He would further submit that even after deducting 50% of market price of the non-agricultural land, which comes to around Rs.1,000/-, Reference Court had committed an error in deducting 30% on the said amount by deducting the same in by going backward, which is not permissible under the law. By relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Maya Devi (Dead) through Legal Representatives and Others vs. State of Haryana and Another reported in (2018) 2 SCC 474 , he would submit that Reference Court has committed grave error by backward deduction, and therefore, the judgment and award passed is erroneous and therefore, required to be quashed and set aside. 4.2 He would further submit that the cross objections raised by the present appellant, by which, they sought comparison of the land of village-Gozaria and the land in question, which are situated in the Langhanj village have rightly been discarded by the trial court. By taking us through the operative part of the judgment, learned advocate Mr. Ajay Mehta would further submit that the Trial Court has again committed error in granting interest at the rate of 9% from the date of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. By taking us through the operative part of the judgment, learned advocate Mr. Ajay Mehta would further submit that the Trial Court has again committed error in granting interest at the rate of 9% from the date of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. However, as per the provisions of Section 28 read with Sections 11 and 16 of the Act, the claimants are entitled for the interest from the date of award and not from the date of notification. He would further submit that whether the claimant would be entitled for the interest from the notification of under Section 4 of the Notification or from the date of award is under consideration by the Apex Court in the Special Leave to Appeal filed by the present appellant- O.N.G.C. itself. He has produced an interim order passed by the Apex Court on 12.10.2018 and would submit that appropriate orders may be passed. 5. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. A.V. Prajapati for the original claimant has opposed this appeal and by taking us through the contention raised in the appeals, he would submit that the claimants are entitled for Rs.2,000/- per sq. mtr. towards the compensation of the land in question. By taking us through the report Exh.24, he would further submit that the land acquired is of village- Langhanj itself. The committee consists of District Collector as a Chairman and other members includes District Development Officer, Mehsana, Secretary and Resident Collector, Mehsana and Town Planner Officer, Mehsana. He would further submit that this Committee has examined the relevant aspect about village- Langhanj and has rightly come to the conclusion that the land is having potential of which the market price determined would be of Rs.2,000/- per sq. mtrs. 5.1 He would further submit that it is true that the land acquired is agricultural land, and therefore, the trial court have deducted certain amounts by deducting at the rate of 50%, and therefore, the claimants would be entitled for reasonable amount for the land acquired way back in the year-2009. Alternatively, he would submit that the trial court has committed error in appreciating the factual data about locations of the lands acquired in the year-2009 itself for different purposes in the year-2009 itself. Alternatively, he would submit that the trial court has committed error in appreciating the factual data about locations of the lands acquired in the year-2009 itself for different purposes in the year-2009 itself. By taking us through the map proved and produced at Exh.28, he would submit that sim of village Langhanj and Gozariya are almost adjacent to each other only a very narrow part of another small village Meu can be seen in the same map. He would further submit that in fact the distance between these two villages, which are of the same taluka, is only four kilometers, which has been specifically stated by the claimants in his deposition. 5.2 By taking us through the deposition of claimant namely Pravin Ambalal Patel at Exh.29, he invited our attention to paragraph No.9 of the deposition, wherein it has been specifically stated that the distance between these two villages Langhanj and Gozariya is only four kilometers. The decision of the Apex Court relied upon by the claimants in which the Apex Court has awarded Rs.765/- per sq. mtr. to the land acquired is ought to have been granted and particularly when the notification issued for the village Gozariya at the instance of authority is on 23.07.2009. In the present case, notification is issued on 17.05.2010. These aspects have been specifically stated by the claimants in Paragraph No.11 of his deposition. 5.3 By taking us through the cross examination of the said witness, he would submit that about the distance, there is no challenge in cross at the instance of present appellant. He therefore would submit that when the notification issued under Section 4 is of same year and within two to three months, the trial court by relying upon same ought to have granted at least Rs.765/- per sq. mtr to the present claimants, if the amount, which has been determined by the market committee is not accepted. He therefore would submit that the same amount i.e. Rs.765/- per sq. mtr may be granted. 5.4 By taking us through the deposition of the witness namely Balmukund Nanabhai Patel at Exh.45, he would submit that he has failed to establish that the distance between two villages is more than four kilometers as stated by the present appellant. He therefore would submit that the same amount i.e. Rs.765/- per sq. mtr may be granted. 5.4 By taking us through the deposition of the witness namely Balmukund Nanabhai Patel at Exh.45, he would submit that he has failed to establish that the distance between two villages is more than four kilometers as stated by the present appellant. He would further submit that appellant- O.N.G.C. has produced only one document in the nature of judgment delivered by the learned Senior Civil Judge and confirmed in the First Appeal by the High Court of village Vadasma. By taking us through the said judgment which was produced at Exh.54, he would submit that the case has rightly not been taken into account by the trial court since in the said case, notification was issued way back in the year-1997. 5.5 As far as granting interest from the date of notification awarded by the trial court is concerned, he would submit that trial court has committed no error in granting the same. In support of his case, he has placed reliance upon the decision of the Apex Court in case of Balwan Singh and others vs. Land Acquisition Collector and another reported in AIR 2016 SC 1565 . He would submit that Apex Court has granted interest as provided under Section 28 from the date of notification not from the date of award. He therefore would submit that appeal filed by the O.N.G.C. be dismissed and the cross-objection may be allowed, accordingly. 6. We have heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and perused the record and proceedings, judgments relied upon by both sides as well as question raised in these appeals as well as in cross objections. As far as the first issue raised by learned advocate Mr. Mehta about comparing the report prepared by the Committee is concerned, we have perused the report Exh.24. It appears that committee consists of District Collector as a Chairman and other members includes District Development Officer, Mehsana, Secretary and Resident Collector, Mehsana and Town Planner Officer, Mehsana which had examined various lands of different villages. However, as far as the land of village Langhanj is concerned, the same is discussed in paragraph No.2 of the said report. 7. It appears from the record that the land is situated at village Langhanj having block No. 1637 admeasuring 1452.94 sq.mtr. However, as far as the land of village Langhanj is concerned, the same is discussed in paragraph No.2 of the said report. 7. It appears from the record that the land is situated at village Langhanj having block No. 1637 admeasuring 1452.94 sq.mtr. From the description, it transpires that in the inner side, there is a school whereas on west side, it is an open area, in the north road goes towards highway whereas in the south direction aaganwadi, temple and roads are located. The committee had also examined other documents i.e. sale deed etc. and considering three items, which were produced at Serial No.8,9 and 10, the price per sq. mtr was fixed as Rs.525/- in the year-2011. Ultimately, the price was fixed at Rs.900/- per sq. mtrs. noticing that the land is situated at near Gamtad and the surrounding areas are having potential for much development, the price was thus fixed at Rs.2,000/- per sq. mtr. 8. It is undisputed fact that the lands, which are required in the present case are agricultural land and more than 50,000 sq. mtrs. of the land have been acquired for construction of LJDE project. Therefore, in our opinion, though the lands are of the same village, the same are not comparable in view of the status of the land i.e. land in question is agricultural land and much bigger size in a plot which is situated at Gamtad. Therefore, the trial court had occasion to compare these two lands. When other evidence like judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in nearby village is concerned, which have relied upon the same judgment. 9. Now coming to the land of village Gozaria and land in question i.e Langhanj, we have scrutinized the map produced on the record at Exh.28. We find from the said map that the boundary of the village Langhanj is surrounded by other villages namely Saldi, Vadasma, Jamnapar, Jornang, Charadu and Meu and railway line has been passing through between Gozaria and Langhanj. Between Gozaria and Langhanj, there is a village namely Meu, however geographically, it is examined a very small portion of village Meu comes in between the sim of village Gozaria and Langhanj. It has remained unchallenged on record that the distance between Gozaria and Langhanj is only of four kilometers and that too by road, however map suggests otherwise. Between Gozaria and Langhanj, there is a village namely Meu, however geographically, it is examined a very small portion of village Meu comes in between the sim of village Gozaria and Langhanj. It has remained unchallenged on record that the distance between Gozaria and Langhanj is only of four kilometers and that too by road, however map suggests otherwise. Therefore, in our opinion, the trial court has rightly relied upon the lands acquired of village Gozariya and the land of present village Langhanj. 10. The notification of village Gozariya issued by the State Authorities for acquisition of Sujlam Suflam Scheme dated 23.07.2009 whereas the land acquired for present appellant- O.N.G.C. is dated 17.05.2010, and therefore, the same are directly comparable. However, we are of the opinion that the land of Gozariya is located on Mehsana Gandhinagar State Highway whereas the geographical situation of land of village Langhanj, it reveals other state highways are passing. It is also found that Mehsana Gandhinagar highway is having more potential than compare to the other state highways. However, in the case of the land of village Gozaria, the Hon’ble Apex Court has granted Rs.765/- per sq. mtr. whereas in the present case, the Reference Court has granted Rs.700/- per sq. mtr., and therefore, this Court would not like to interfere with the award granted by the trial court. 11. As far as the disbursement of the amount with regard to interest part is concerned, we have perused the provisions of Sections 11, 16 and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, we have also examined the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of R.L. Jain(D) by Lrs. vs. Dda & Ors reported in 2004 (4) SCC 79 . We have also considered interim order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.26817 of 2018, which are as under : “Issue notice. Until further orders, there will be stay of operation of the impugned orders passed by the High Court, subject to petitioners depositing with the Reference Court the interest from the date of award, within three weeks from today. On such deposit, it will be open to the claimants to withdraw the same, on proper verification, without prejudice to their contentions in these cases. On such deposit, it will be open to the claimants to withdraw the same, on proper verification, without prejudice to their contentions in these cases. We make it clear that this order will apply in the case of all pending matters in the High Court and, therefore, those claimants need not travel to this Court. Tag with SLP (C) No.27049/2018.” 12. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion, that no ground is made out to interfere in Appeal as well as cross-objection. We therefore, pass following order : "The compensation awarded by the Reference Court is hereby confirmed. So far as the interest accrued from the date of notification issued under Section 4 till the award is declared is concerned, the same shall be deposited by the appellant and invested in any nationalized bank by the trial court in the name of the Registrar of concerned Court. Subsequent to the decisions delivered by the Hon’ble Apex Court, any of the party may file application before the Reference Court for disbursement of the interest with cumulative interest. Rest of the amount shall be disbursed and paid to the original claimants in accordance with law." 13. Accordingly, appeals filed by the present appellant fail and stand dismissed. Consequently, cross objections also stand dismissed. No costs. 14. R & P to be sent back to concerned trial court forthwith.