JUDGMENT : (A.S. Supehia, J.) ORDER IN FIRST APPEAL Nos.1316 to 1323, 1325 to 1327 & 1329 to 1330 of 2015 1. These First Appeals emanate from judgment and award dated 21.2.2015 passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Kadi, District-Mehsana, in Land Acquisition Reference Cases Nos.1458 to 1465, 1467, 1469, 1470 & 1472 of 2013 with Land Acquisition Reference No.1626 of 2013. Land Reference Cases arise out of the acquisition of land situated at Village-Agol, Taluka-Kadi, District-Mehsana, by the Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Limited for the purpose of construction of canal of Narmada Yojana. The process of acquisition of land was initiated by issuance of Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter for the sake of brevity and convenience referred to as “the Act”) on 31.1.2012 and publication of Notification under Section 6 of the Act on 31.3.2012. Thereafter, the award under Section 11 of the Act was passed on 28.2.2013, whereby Special Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at Rs.15.88 per sq.mtr. Being aggrieved, the claimants preferred afore-noted reference cases under Section 18 of the Act seeking enhanced compensation of Rs.1000/- per sq.mtr. The Reference Court by impugned judgment and award awarded additional compensation of Rs.856/- per sq.mtr. over and above the compensation awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer and also ordered that they are entitled to get compensation at the rate of 12% on additional amount of compensation so awarded as per provisions of Section 23 (1-A) of the Act, and solatium at the rate of 30% and running interest at the rate of 9%p.a. from the date of taking over the possession or from the date of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act, whichever is earlier and, thereafter, at the rate of 15% p.a. on aggregated amount i.e. additional awarded solatium was ordered. Accordingly, present First Appeals under Section 54 of the Act read with Section 96 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 have been filed. 2. Learned AGP appearing for the acquiring body, at the outset, has submitted that the award of compensation by the Reference Court is primarily based on consideration of sale instances below Exh.13 to 22. Accordingly, present First Appeals under Section 54 of the Act read with Section 96 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 have been filed. 2. Learned AGP appearing for the acquiring body, at the outset, has submitted that the award of compensation by the Reference Court is primarily based on consideration of sale instances below Exh.13 to 22. It is submitted that the sale instances or the Sale Deeds could not have been relied upon by the Reference Court while determining the compensation since the Sale Deeds pertain to small parcels of land, though of the same village, but were executed on 19.9.2011 i.e. prior to approximately four months from the date of issuance of Notification under Section 4 of the Act i.e. on 31.1.2012. It is also submitted that the Sale Deed is about the small parcel of land and, hence, the said sale instances could not have been relied while determining the amount of compensation. It is further submitted that the Reference Court has fallen in error in determining the average price of Rs.945/- and, thereafter, incorrectly deducted 10% from such amount. It is submitted that the land acquired in the present cases are consisting of very large area and, hence, no reliance could have been placed on sale instances. He further submitted that, in fact, the Land Acquisition Officer had placed reliance on the judgment and award dated 12.3.2012 (Exh.30), rendered for the land acquired from the very same village, wherein the amount of compensation was awarded at the rate of Rs.63/- per sq.mtr. Thus, it is submitted that the amount awarded for the land acquisition, in the present case is exorbitant and the same should have been awarded in line of the observations made in the judgment dated 12.3.2012. Thus, it is submitted that First Appeals may be allowed and the impugned award be set aside. 3. In response to the aforesaid submission, learned advocate, Mr.Prajapati has submitted that the impugned judgment and award do not require any interference and the same is properly passed. He has submitted that the Reference Court has precisely placed reliance on the sale instances Exh.13 to 22 and, after considering the sale instances, which are proved, an average price of Rs.945/- was determined by the Reference Court and, accordingly, amount of compensation has been precisely awarded. He has submitted that the Reference Court has precisely placed reliance on the sale instances Exh.13 to 22 and, after considering the sale instances, which are proved, an average price of Rs.945/- was determined by the Reference Court and, accordingly, amount of compensation has been precisely awarded. Learned advocate, Mr.Prajapati, while placing reliance on the evidence at Exh.24, has submitted that in fact the witness of such sale deed was examined and it is proved that entire transaction has been entered of the concerned land of Village-Agol itself, vide Sale Deed dated 19.9.2011 and the land of very same village has been purchased by the registered Sale Deed. 4. By placing reliance on the deposition of the officer of respondent-Nigam, at Exh.26, it is submitted that in fact the concerned officer has admitted that while determining the amount of compensation at the time of making award, the authority has placed reliance on the Sale Deed dated 18.3.2010, however, subsequent Sale Deed dated 19.9.2011 was not considered and, hence, the claimants, in support of their claim placed reliance on such sale deed before the Reference Court. He has further placed reliance on Exh.23. It is submitted that the Sale Deeds are proved by leading evidence and the amount of compensation was determined and awarded by the Reference Court, which does not require any interference. With regard to the submission of learned AGP of placing reliance on judgment dated 12.3.2012 in reference proceedings, which is produced at Exh.30, it is submitted that in that case before the Reference Court, Notification under Section 4 of the Act was published on 1.6.2005, whereas in the present case, Notification under Section 4 of the Act has been published on 31.1.2012. In fact, the Reference Court, in that case, has placed reliance on the previous land Reference Case No.1280 of 2003 to 1292 of 2003 for which Notification under Section 4 of the Act was published on 7.12.1999 and, hence, the Reference Court has precisely ignored such evidence as there would be gap of more than five years between the issuance of Notification under Section 4 for acquisition of land of the very same village. He has submitted that as per the judgment of the Apex court in the case of General Manager, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited v. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel reported in 2008 (14) SCC 745 , which has been considered by the Reference Court, the judgment and award on which Land Acquisition Officer has placed reliance could not have been considered. Thus, it is submitted that the First Appeals do not require any interference. 5. We have perused the evidence, which has been pointed out before this Court as well as considered the submissions advanced by learned advocates for the respective parties at length. The facts, as noted, with regard to the acquisition of land at Village-Agol, Taluka-Kadi, District-Mehsana, are not in dispute. The fate of the First Appeals hinges on Exh.13 to 22, i.e. the sale instances dated 19.9.2011 on which the claimant placed reliance, which are four months prior to the date of publication of Section 4 Notification i.e. on 31.1.2012. The claimants, in support of their case, have placed reliance on such registered documents of very same village by which the lands have been purchased. Witness in support of such Sale Deeds has been examined below Exh.24 and it is not in dispute that all the Sale Deeds are registered Sale Deeds. As per the deposition of witness below Exh.24, such Sale Deeds, which are registered have been proved and, hence, the contention raised by the Land Acquisition Officer before the Reference Court of not proving the Sale Deeds, has been negatived by the Reference Court by examining the witness below Exh.23. 6. The issue, which requires deliberation by this Court is whether the Reference Court has fallen in error or not in considering sale instances, which are prior to four months of issuance of Notification under Section 4 of the Act. It is not the case of the acquiring body, either before this Court or before the Reference Court, that the Sale Deeds which are entered prior to four months from the publication of Section 4 Notification are in any manner, executed only for the purpose of defeating the price of acquisition or for claiming enhanced compensation. It is not the case of the acquiring body, either before this Court or before the Reference Court, that the Sale Deeds which are entered prior to four months from the publication of Section 4 Notification are in any manner, executed only for the purpose of defeating the price of acquisition or for claiming enhanced compensation. No evidence is led before the Reference Court that such Sale Deeds are only entered in order to frustrate the compensation awarded by acquiring body and, hence, while examining the judgment and award of the Reference Court in First Appeals, we cannot delve into such question of fact, which is raised before this Court, in absence of any contention raised before the Reference Court in this regard. Thus, in our opinion, sale instances is the best evidence which has been precisely relied by the Reference Court for determining the amount of compensation. 7. With regard to second aspect of discarding evidence of the judgment and award dated 12.3.2012 passed in Land Acquisition Reference Case No.1280 to 1292 of 2003 relating to the land acquired of the very same village, this Court has perused the said award. Bare perusal of the award reveals that while placing reliance on the earlier award passed in Land Acquisition Reference Case No.1280 of 2003 to 1292 of 2003, which was decided by the judgment and award dated 19.2.2008, for the lands which have been acquired of the very same village, the Section 4 Notification was published on 7.12.1999. In the said case, being Land Acquisition Reference No.939 of 2009 to 961 of 2009, which has been decided by judgment dated 12.3.2012, Section 4 Notification was published on 1.6.2005. In juxtaposition to the aforesaid notifications to the Notification issued in the present case under Section 4 of the Act on 31.1.2012, it can be noticed that there is a time gap of eleven years and seven years respectively from the Notification dated 31.1.2012 and the publications of Notification dated 7.12.1999 and 1.6.2005. At this stage, it would be apposite to refer to the observations made by the Apex Court in the case of Ramjibhai Jivanbhai Patel (supra), wherein Supreme Court has held thus:- “12. At this stage, it would be apposite to refer to the observations made by the Apex Court in the case of Ramjibhai Jivanbhai Patel (supra), wherein Supreme Court has held thus:- “12. Normally, recourse is taken to the mode of determining the market value by providing appropriate escalation over the proved market value of nearby lands in previous years (as evidenced by sale transactions or acquisition), where there is no evidence of any contemporaneous sale transactions or acquisitions of comparable lands in the neighbourhood. The said method is reasonably safe where the relied-on-sale transactions/acquisitions precedes the subject acquisition by only a few years, that is upto four to five years. Beyond that it may be unsafe, even if it relates to a neighbouring land. What may be a reliable standard if the gap is only a few years, may become unsafe and unreliable standard where the gap is larger. For example, for determining the market value of a land acquired in 1992, adopting the annual increase method with reference to a sale or acquisition in 1970 or 1980 may have many pitfalls. This is because, over the course of years, the `rate' of annual increase may itself undergo drastic change apart from the likelihood of occurrence of varying periods of stagnation in prices or sudden spurts in prices affecting the very standard of increase.” 8. The Apex Court has categorically held that normally recourse is taken to the mode of determining the market value by providing appropriate escalation over the proved market value of nearby lands in previous years (as evidenced by sale transactions or acquisition), where there is no evidence of any contemporaneous sale transactions or acquisitions of comparable lands in the neighbourhood, such method is reasonably safe. However, there has to be gap of four to five years while placing reliance on such transactions and beyond that it would be unsafe, even if it relates to a neighbouring land. Thus, the judgment on which the acquiring body has placed reliance, pertains to such acquisition of land for which Section 4 Notification has been issued on 7.12.1999. The Reference Court has while placing reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ramjibhai Jivanbhai Patel (supra) and, in other judgments, on a similar issue, has precisely discarded the evidence of the judgments and award on which reliance has been placed by the acquiring body. The Reference Court has while placing reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ramjibhai Jivanbhai Patel (supra) and, in other judgments, on a similar issue, has precisely discarded the evidence of the judgments and award on which reliance has been placed by the acquiring body. Thus, the only evidence which was available before the Reference Court was that of sale instances Exh.13 to 22 and, accordingly, Reference Court has considered average rate of Rs.945/- per sq.mtr. and deducted 10% from the said amount i.e. Rs.94.50 and accordingly, fixed an amount of Rs.850.50 per sq.mtr., for deciding the value of acquired land on the substratum of date of sale deeds. After determining the said amount, Reference Court has thereafter granted requisite statutory interest, which we do not find faulty or inappropriate and, hence, we are of the considered opinion that the judgment and award passed by the Reference Court does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality, which would require interference by this Court. Hence, the First Appeals fails and the same are dismissed. Record and Proceedings be sent back to the concerned Court forthwith. ORDER IN FIRST APPEAL Nos.1602 to 1611 of 2017 These First Appeals arise out of the same acquisition of land for which Notification under Sections 4 and 6 as well as Award are identical. It is noticed by this Court that in the impugned judgment and award dated 28.9.2016, Reference Court has placed reliance on the judgment and award of Land Acquisition Reference Case No.1458 of 2013 to 1472 of 2013 dated 21.2.2015. Since we have dismissed aforesaid First Appeals challenging the judgment and award dated 21.2.2015, present First Appeals which are filed against the judgment and order dated 28.9.2016 in Land Acquisition Reference Case Nos.1299 to 1309 of 2013 are required to be dismissed as Reference Court has placed reliance on the judgment in Land Acquisition Reference No.1458 of 2013 to 1472 of 2013, Exh.18. Such judgment and award has been relied upon and accepted, below Exh.18, while determining amount of compensation vide judgment and award dated 28.9.2016. In the light of aforesaid order, which has been passed in First Appeal No.1316 of 2015 and allied appeals, present First Appeals are also dismissed. Such judgment and award has been relied upon and accepted, below Exh.18, while determining amount of compensation vide judgment and award dated 28.9.2016. In the light of aforesaid order, which has been passed in First Appeal No.1316 of 2015 and allied appeals, present First Appeals are also dismissed. ORDER IN FIRST APPEAL Nos.1045 to 1053 of 2017 These First Appeals arise out of the same acquisition of land for which Notification under Sections 4 and 6 as well as Award are identical. In the present group of matter, Notification under Section 4 of the Act for acquisition of the land was published on 18.2.2011, while Notification under Section 6 of the Act was published on 17.12.2011. It is noticed by this Court that in the impugned judgment and award dated 28.9.2016, Reference Court has placed reliance on the judgment and award of Land Acquisition Reference Case No.1458 of 2013 to 1472 of 2013 dated 21.2.2015. Since we have dismissed aforesaid First Appeals challenging the judgment and award dated 21.2.2015, present First Appeals which are filed against the judgment and order dated 28.9.2016 in Land Acquisition Reference Case Nos.1288, 1289, 1292, 1294 to 1298 of 2013 are required to be dismissed as Reference Court has placed reliance on the judgment in Land Acquisition Reference No.1458 of 2013 to 1472 of 2013, Exh.15. In the light of aforesaid order, which has been passed in First Appeal No.1316 of 2015 and allied appeals, present First Appeals are also dismissed.