JUDGMENT : NIKHIL S. KARIEL, J. 1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Utsav P. Parikh for the appellants and learned AGP Ms. Roshni Patel for the respondent-State. 2. ADMIT. Learned AGP Ms. Patel waives service of notice of admission on behalf of the respondent-State. 3. With consent of learned Advocates for the parties, the present first appeal is taken up for final disposal. 4. By way of this appeal, the appellants challenge judgment and order passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Amreli, dated 30.01.2018 in Land Reference Case No. 159 of 1999. 5. Learned Advocate Mr. Parikh for the appellants, at the outset, refers to a decision of a learned Co-ordinate Bench of this Court (Coram: Mr. Justice J.B. Pardiwala, as His Lordship then was) dated 08.10.2018 in First Appeal No. 3828 of 2018 and allied matters and would submit that for lands situated in the very same village as the land in question which had been acquired for the very same project, the learned Co-ordinate Bench, relying upon decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in case of land acquired for the very same Vadi Irrigation Project, had modified the award by granting additional compensation in favour of the claimants therein. 6. This Court has perused the order dated 08.10.2018 and whereas it would appear that the land had been acquired for the very same Irrigation Project and whereas even the dates of Notification under Section 4 and Notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act are near about dates. Having regard to the same, this Court is of the opinion that the law laid down by the Hon'ble Division Bench and followed by the learned Coordinate Bench of this Court, would be binding on this Court. As it is, this Court had requested learned AGP Ms. Patel to make any submission as regards the decision being relied upon by learned Advocate for the appellants, not being relatable to the facts of the present case and whereas learned AGP could not controvert the submissions that the judgment of this Court is of the same village and whereas the land had been acquired for the very selfsame purpose. 7. 7. Having regard to such a situation, this Court proposes to refer to and rely upon reasoning by the learned Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in order dated 08.10.2018 for the purpose of present appeal also which reads as thus: “1. As the issues raised in all the captioned appeals are the same, and the challenge is also to a selfsame judgment and award passed by the Reference Court, those were heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. 2. These first appeals arise from a judgment and order passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Amreli in the Land Reference Cases Nos. 9 of 2005 to 18 of 2005 dated 17th March, 2018. The court below partly allowed the references. The Reference Court has determined the compensation at Rs.30 per square meter for the irrigated (Bagayat) land and Rs.20 per square meter for the non-irrigated (Jirayat) land with the statutory benefit of 30% solation, 12% increase under section 23(1)(A) of the Land Acquisition Act and interest at the rate of Rs.9% for the first year and 15% for the remaining years from the date of taking over of the possession. The land of the appellants is situated at village Venivadar, Taluka: Amreli, District: Amreli. The lands were acquired for the purpose of the Vadi Irrigation Project. 3. On 8.8.1996, a notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was published in the Gujarat Government Gazette. 4. On 24.6.1997, declaration was published in the Gujarat Government Gazette, Part-1-B on pages 246 to 247 under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. 5. On 18.3.1998, the land acquisition office declared the award under section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act. Compensation was offered at the rate of Rs.7/- per square meter for Jiyarat land and Rs.10.50 paise for Bagayat land with statutory benefits of solation at the rate of 30% and 12% increase from the date of the notification till the date of the award and interest. Interested party/claimants had made written application to the Land Acquisition Officer to make Reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. 6. On 15.2.2005, consequently Reference Cases Nos.9 to 18 of 2005 were registered before the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Amreli. The claimants have demanded Rs.200/- per square meter. 7. Interested party/claimants had made written application to the Land Acquisition Officer to make Reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. 6. On 15.2.2005, consequently Reference Cases Nos.9 to 18 of 2005 were registered before the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Amreli. The claimants have demanded Rs.200/- per square meter. 7. The claimants led the following oral evidence: (I) Affidavit of Shri Mulji Kuvarjibhai Panelia, applicant of L.A.R. Case No. 15 of 2005. 8. The claimants led the following documentary evidence: S. No. Name of Documents Exhibit No. 1 Valuation report of Srv. No. 114 paiki plot No. 14 of village -Venivadar of Amreli Taluka 57 2 Valuation report of Srv. No. 114 paiki plot No. 12 of village-Venivadar of Amreli Taluka 58 3 Valuation report of Srv. No. 114 paiki plot no. 1 of village-Venivadar of Amreli Taluka 59 4 Copy of award passed by the L.A.O in L.A.Q No. 28/95, dated 18.03.1998. 72 5 Copy of the judgment pronounced by the then Assistant Judge, Amreli in L.R.C. No. 182-1993, Dated: 24.12.1997 75 6 Xerox copy of judgment passed by Hon. S.C. In Civil Appeal No. 204/00, Dated: 29.7.2009 70 7 Xerox copy of spill way map shown spill way and E-Distance between the Thebi dam and Vadi dam. 77 8 Xerox copy of revenue record, Village Form No. 7 and 12 of Srv. No. 115/4, 111, 113, paiki and 114 paiki of Venivadar village. 78 9 Xerox copy of amended award. 83 9. The opponents have adduced the following oral evidence: S. No. Name of the witnesses Exhibit No. 1 Affidavit of evidence of Mr. Pravinbhai Ambabhai Govani-(deposition) 64 10. The opponents have produced the following documentary evidence: S. No. Name of Documents Exhibit No. 1 Copy of judgment pronounced by the then Principal Senior Civil Judge in Group L.R.C. No. 111-1999 to 133-1999 on 30.4.2015 of Vadi Irrigation Project. 70 11. The learned judge has considered judgment of group of Land Reference Cases Nos.41 of 2002 to 51 of 2002 and the land was acquired in Nana Bhandariya Vadi Irrigation Project and the Land Reference Cases Nos. 70 11. The learned judge has considered judgment of group of Land Reference Cases Nos.41 of 2002 to 51 of 2002 and the land was acquired in Nana Bhandariya Vadi Irrigation Project and the Land Reference Cases Nos. 68 of 1999 to 79 of 1999 and in the group of matters where Reference Cases Nos.56 of 1999 to 65 of 1999 and 176 of 1999 and in the group of the Land Reference Cases Nos.111 of 1999 to 133 of 1999 at Exhi.70 where the Reference Court has awarded Rs.20/- per square meter for the Jiyarat land and Rs.30/- for the Bagayat land. The learned Judge has not considered the judgment of the Thebi Irrigation Project at Exh.76 on the ground that both the projects are different. 12. The judgment relief upon by the Reference Court in the various group of the Land Reference Cases where the land was acquired for Vadi Irrigation Project were challenged before the Hon'ble High Court by the claimants by way of filing the First Appeal Nos.2825 of 2012 with 1546 of 2018 and others before the Hon'ble High Court. The Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court, by judgment and order dated 7.8.2018, allowed the appeals by awarding compensation in group of appeals relying upon the judgment of the Thebi Irrigation Project and determined market price at Rs.65/- per square meter for the Jiyarat land and Rs.97.50 for the Bagayat land. 13. I may quote few relevant paras of the Division Bench judgment, referred to above. Paras-3 and 3.1 reads as under: “3. First Appeals No. 2825 of 2012 to 2859 of 2012 arise out of the common judgment and award dated 31.03.2012 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Amreli in Land Reference Case No. 68 of 1999 and allied matters. 3.1 Agricultural lands of the appellants situated in village Nana Bhandariya of Amreli taluka of Amreli district came to be acquired for the public purpose of the Vadi Irrigation Project. The notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), came to be published on 11.04.1996, whereas the declaration under section 6 of the Act came to be published in the Government Gazette on 04.07.1996. The notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), came to be published on 11.04.1996, whereas the declaration under section 6 of the Act came to be published in the Government Gazette on 04.07.1996. Notices came to be issued under section 9 of the Act upon the interested parties, whereafter the Land Acquisition Officer made an award under section 11 of the Act on 17.07.1998 in L.A.Q. No. 21 of 1995 awarding compensation of Rs.1,050/- per are (Rs.10.50 per square metre) for bagayat land and Rs.700/- per are (Rs.7/- per square metre) for jirayat land. Being dissatisfied with the award, the appellants filed applications under section 18 of the Act claiming compensation at the rate of Rs.400/- per square metre. The Reference Court determined the market value of the acquired lands at Rs.20/- per square metre for Jirayat lands and Rs.30/- per square metre for Bagayat lands.” 14. Let me now go straight to para-66 of the Division Bench judgment: “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.” 15. For the foregoing reasons, all the appeals are partly allowed. The judgment and order passed by the Reference Court in the L.A.R Cases Nos.9 of 2005 to 18 of 2005 and L.A.R Cases Nos.57 of 2005 to 68 of 2005 is hereby modified. The appellants would be entitled to additional compensation at the rate of Rs.97/- per square meter (Rs.117 minus Rs.20/- for Jiyarat land and Rs.145 per square meter (175.50 minus Rs.30/- for Bagayat land. 16. The appellants would be entitled to additional compensation at the rate of Rs.97/- per square meter (Rs.117 minus Rs.20/- for Jiyarat land and Rs.145 per square meter (175.50 minus Rs.30/- for Bagayat land. 16. Rest of the directions given in the impugned award regarding benefit to be given to the appellants for solation of Rs.30% under section 23 (2) and 12% increase under section 23 (1-A) and interest at the rate of 9% for the first year and 15% for the remaining years are hereby not disturbed at all and are hereby confirmed. There shall be no order as to costs.” 8. It appears that the above quoted Paragraph No. 15 had been modified by the learned Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide an order dated 01.11.2018 and whereas modified Paragraph No. 15 reads as under: “15. For the foregoing reasons, all the appeals are partly allowed. The judgment and order passed by the Reference Court in the L.A. R. Cases Nos. 9 of 2005 to 18 of 2005 and L.A.R. Cases Nos. 57 of 2005 to 68 of 2005 is hereby modified. The appellants would be entitled to additional compensation at the rate of Rs.65/- per square meter (Rs. 50 Plus Rs. 15/- for Jirayat land) and Rs.97=50ps. per square meter (Rs.75 Plus Rs.22=50ps. for Bagayat land).” 9. Having regard to the view taken by the learned Co-ordinate Bench of this Court and having regard to the final relief granted as also having regard to the similarity as noted hereinabove, the appellants herein also would be entitled to the very same relief. Hence, the judgment and order passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Amreli, dated 30.01.2018 in Land Reference Case No. 159 of 1999, is hereby modified. It is directed that the appellants would be entitled to additional compensation at the rate of Rs. 65/- per square meter (Rs. 50 Plus Rs. 15/- for Jirayat land) and Rs.97=50ps. per square meter (Rs.75 Plus Rs.22=50ps. for Bagayat land). 10. It is also directed that the other components as directed by the learned Reference Court in the judgment and order dated 30.01.2018 shall remain as it is as except the modification as noted hereinabove. 11. 65/- per square meter (Rs. 50 Plus Rs. 15/- for Jirayat land) and Rs.97=50ps. per square meter (Rs.75 Plus Rs.22=50ps. for Bagayat land). 10. It is also directed that the other components as directed by the learned Reference Court in the judgment and order dated 30.01.2018 shall remain as it is as except the modification as noted hereinabove. 11. It is further directed that the appellants would not be entitled to any interest on the enhanced compensation for the period of delay, more particularly relying upon the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of K. Subbarayadu and Others vs. The Special Deputy Collector, (Land Acquisition), 2017 (12) SCC 840 . At this stage, it would be required to be clarified that a learned Co-ordinate Bench of this Court (Coram: A.Y. Kogje, J.) vide order dated 20.02.2023 had in application for condoning delay of 919 days in preferring the first appeal had recorded the submissions made by learned AGP as regards the delay to be condoned subject to an observation that the claimants shall not be entitled for interest during the period of delay. It appears that the same had been opposed by the claimants and whereas the learned Co-ordinate Bench had kept the issue open. 12. As noted hereinabove, as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of K. Subbarayadu and Ors (supra), more particularly having regard to the fact that the delay was inordinate and with a view to balance the equities, more particularly to ensure that a person should not get benefit of his own wrong, this Court is of the opinion that while the appellants-claimants may be entitled to additional compensation, the appellants would not be entitled to any interest upon the enhanced compensation for the period of delay of 919 days. 13. Considering the fact that the learned Co-ordinate Bench in the above quoted judgment had directed the respondents to calculate and deposit the amount of compensation payable to the appellants in the Reference Court within a period of 12 weeks, the same direction is required to be passed in the present appeal also. Hence, the respondents are directed to calculate and deposit the amount as payable to the appellants and to deposit the same before the learned Reference Court within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of this decision. 14. Hence, the respondents are directed to calculate and deposit the amount as payable to the appellants and to deposit the same before the learned Reference Court within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of this decision. 14. With the above observations and directions, the present appeal is disposed of as partly allowed.