ORDER : 1. The present first appeal emanates from the judgment and award dated 22.03.2007 passed by learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gandhinagar in Land Acquisition Reference Case Nos.100 and 101 of 2005, wherein and whereby the reference Court has awarded an additional compensation of Rs.411/- per sq.mtr. over and above, the additional amount of compensation awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer at Rs.24/- per sq.mtr. 2. The appellant-ONGC acquired the lands of village Mansa for the purpose of Drill Site, for which Section 4 notification under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ”the Act”) was issued on 21.12.1999 and Section 6 notification was published on 13.12.2000. The Special Land Acquisition Officer thereafter, awarded an amount of Rs.24/- as per sq.mtr. vide award dated 29.04.2002. Being aggrieved, the claimants filed the reference proceedings claiming compensation at Rs.1,000/- per sq.mtr. along with statutory interest. After appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence, the reference Court has enhanced the compensation, as mentioned hereinabove. Being aggrieved, the appellant acquiring body - ONGC has preferred the present appeal. 3. Learned advocate Mr.Meena appearing for the appellant - ONGC has submitted that the reference Court has fallen in error in placing reliance on the judgment and award delivered by the reference Court in LAR Nos.314 and 315 of 2000 for village Pindarda at Exh.15 instead of placing reliance on LAR No. 171 of 2005 of the very same village Mansa below Exh.14. While referring to the contents of the impugned judgment and award, learned advocate Me.Meena has submitted that the evidence below Exh.14 of village Mansa has been ignored and judgment and award of village Pandarda below Exh.15 has been considered and adopted by the reference Court in determining the compensation only for the reason that the market value of Mansa can be said to be very higher than all the lands of village Pindarda. 4. While referring to the map of village Mansa, it is submitted by the learned advocate that in fact, the lands, which were subject matter of LAR No. 171 of 2005 of the very same village, are in close vicinity to the lands acquired for the Drill Site at Mansa village and hence, the same could not have been ignored. It is submitted by him that in LAR No. 171 of 2005, the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gandhinagar has awarded Rs.294/- per sq.mtr. It is submitted by him that in LAR No. 171 of 2005, the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gandhinagar has awarded Rs.294/- per sq.mtr. for the lands acquired for the Drill Site in village Mansa. It is submitted that Section 4 notification dated 13.10.1999 was considered by the reference Court, while passing the judgment and award at Exh.14 for the lands acquired by the acquiring body- ONGC, whereas in the present case, section 4 notification was published on 21.12.1999 and hence, the reference Court could not have awarded the additional compensation of Rs.411/- per sq.mtr. Thus, it is submitted that reliance placed by the reference Court on the judgment and award at Exh.15 relating to the lands acquired at village Pindarda is erroneous since village Pindarda is situated at the distance of 4-5 kms. He has further placed reliance on deposition of the Special Land Acquisition Officer, who is examined below Exh.19 and has admitted in his cross-examination that village Pindarda is 8 kms. away from village Mansa and hence, the compensation was not required to be enhanced. While placing reliance on the order dated 01.11.2017 passed in Civil Appeal Nos.9061- 9110 of 2011 passed by the Apex Court, it is submitted that the Apex Court has determined the amount of Rs.491/- per sq.mtr. for the very same village Mansa by considering Section 4 notification, which has been issued on 26.08.2004 and accordingly, valuation of the land is required to be reduced and as per his calculation, the same would come to Rs.246/- per sq.mtr. Thus, it is submitted that the impugned judgment and award is required to be quashed and set aside, and the entire amount of compensation which is withdrawn by the claimants may be directed to be refunded. 5. Per contra, learned advocate Mr.Shital Patel appearing for the claimant with learned advocate Ms.Shivani Trivedi has submitted that the impugned judgment and award does not require to be interfered with in view of the judgment of the Apex Court dated 01.11.2017 passed in Civil Appeal Nos.9061-9110 of 2011. It is submitted that the Apex Court has considered acquisition of the land for the very same village, for which section 4 notification was issued on 13.10.1999 and the compensation was determined at Rs.431/- per sq.mtr. in LAR No. 90 of 2005, which has been accepted by the appellant - acquiring body. It is submitted that the Apex Court has considered acquisition of the land for the very same village, for which section 4 notification was issued on 13.10.1999 and the compensation was determined at Rs.431/- per sq.mtr. in LAR No. 90 of 2005, which has been accepted by the appellant - acquiring body. It is submitted that the aforesaid amount of compensation of Rs.431/- per sq.mtr. has become final and the claimants have also received the aforesaid amount. He has further invited attention of this Court to the judgment and award dated 28.03.2007 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gandhinagar in LAR No. 90 of 2005 and has submitted that the Apex Court was conscious of the aforesaid judgment and award and thereafter the market value was determined by the Apex Court at Rs.646.50/- per sq.mtr. and thereafter, 24%-25% was deducted for the development that has taken place around such acquired land of village Mansa and hence, value of the aforesaid land was determined at Rs.491/- per sq.mtr. Thus, it is urged by learned advocate Mr.Patel that the compensation of Rs.435/- per sq.mtr. awarded by the reference Court may not be interfered with. 6. In response to the aforesaid submissions, learned advocate Mr.Meena has submitted that through oversight, the acquiring body did not challenge the judgment and award dated 28.03.2007 passed in LAR No. 90 of 2005 awarding compensation of Rs.431/- per sq.mtr. for the acquisition of the land for the Drill Site of the very same village Mansa, for which Section 4 notification was published on 13.10.1999. It is submitted that hence, the aforesaid judgment and award dated 28.03.2007 passed in LAR No. 90 of 2005 may not be considered and instead, the judgment and award passed below Exh.14 for the acquisition of the land of the very same village Mansa, for which Section 4 notification was published on 13.10.1999 may be considered and accordingly, the impugned judgment and award is required to be modified. 7. Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties at length and also perused the documents as pointed out by them. 8. The facts, which are established from the record that the appellant - acquiring body acquired the land of village Mansa for the purpose of the Drill Site numbered as LMDW, for which Section 4 notification was issued on 21.12.1999 and Section 6 notification was published on 13.12.2000. 8. The facts, which are established from the record that the appellant - acquiring body acquired the land of village Mansa for the purpose of the Drill Site numbered as LMDW, for which Section 4 notification was issued on 21.12.1999 and Section 6 notification was published on 13.12.2000. The Special Land Acquisition Officer awarded amount of Rs.24/- per sq.mtr. the claimants filed the reference proceedings claiming Rs.1,000/- per sq.mtr., which culminated into the impugned judgment and award, wherein the reference Court has awarded additional amount of Rs.435/- per sq.mtr. 9. The judgment and award passed by the reference Court is opposed primarily on two grounds that the reference Court could not have relied upon the judgment and award below Exh.15, while determining the compensation as the said award pertains to LAR Nos.314 and 315 of 2000 for the lands acquired at village Pindarda. It is the case of the appellant that the reference Court instead should have placed reliance on the judgment and award passed in LAR No. 171 of 2005 of very same village i.e. Exh.14. 10. We have perused the findings of the reference Court in this regard and the reference Court has placed reliance on the judgment and award below Exh.15 of village Pindarda only for the reason that value of the land in Mansa village was very high. The evidence in this regard is established and the same suggests that village Pindarda is almost 4-5 kms. away from village Mansa. In our opinion, the reference Court has fallen in error in placing reliance on the judgment and award below Exh.15 of village Pindarda only for the reason that the market value of land of Mansa can be said to be very high than village Pindarda. 11. The next issue, which falls for consideration before this Court, is that whether the reference Court could have placed reliance on the judgment and award below Exh.14, which pertains to the very same village, for which Section 4 notification of the Act was issued on 13.10.1999, or shall we consider the order passed by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 9061 of 2011, which pertains to the lands acquired by the present appellant of very same village Mansa. 12. 12. At this stage, it would be relevant to note that the judgment and award dated 28.03.2007 was passed subsequently in LAR No. 90 of 2005 by the very same Court i.e. learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gandhinagar for the lands acquired by the appellant - acquiring body in the very same village for the Drill Site, for which Section 4 notification was published on 13.10.1999. The reference Court has awarded compensation of Rs.431/- per sq.mtr. along with the statutory interest. 13. It is interesting to note that subsequently for the very same village and the same acquiring body, for which Section 4 notification of the Act was issued on 26.08.2004, such acquisition was carried upto the Apex Court and the same culminated into Civil Appeal No. 9061-9110 of 2011. By the judgment and order dated 01.11.2017, the first appeals were disposed of and the Apex Court determined the compensation of Rs.491/- per sq.mtr. along with statutory benefits. It is pertinent to note that the reference Court as well as this Court, while determining the compensation of the lands, which are subject matter before the Apex Court, has placed reliance on the notification published under Section 4 dated 14.10.1999 by the appellant acquiring body for acquiring the lands of the very same village, for which compensation of Rs.431/- per sq.mtr. had already become final. The reference Court, High Court and the Apex Court, while placing reliance on such compensation of Rs.431/- per sq.mtr., which was granted for the acquisition of land, for which section 4 notification was issued on 14.10.1999, has ultimately determined price of Rs.491/- per sq.mtr. for the lands acquired of the very same village vide notification dated 26.08.2004. The facts of the case before the Apex Court and the observations made therein are as under: “Facts: Land acquisition proceedings were initiated by issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as “Act”) on 26.08.2004 followed by declaration dated 12.01.2005 under Section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Officer passed Award under Section 11 of the Act, determining the compensation at the rate of Rs.25 per square meter. The land owners sought reference under Section 18 of the Act. They claimed compensation at the rate of Rs.800 per square meter. The Land Acquisition Officer passed Award under Section 11 of the Act, determining the compensation at the rate of Rs.25 per square meter. The land owners sought reference under Section 18 of the Act. They claimed compensation at the rate of Rs.800 per square meter. They relied upon the report of the District Valuation Committee, Gandhinagar, for the Village Mansa fixing the rate at Rs.815 per square meter. They also relied upon the Award in the case of land acquisition for which notification under Section 4 had been issued on 14.10.1999; compensation was determined at the rate of Rs.431 per square meter, for the land acquired for the purpose of a drill site to be set ip by Oil and Natural Gas Corporation (ONGC), at a distance of 2 km in the same village. Reliance was also placed by the land owners on the valuation report by the Government Registered Valuer determining the rate at Rs.700 per square meter for the land, and at Rs.800 per square meter for the and with fruit bearing trees. Land owners, as well as other parties, adduced the evidence before the Reference Court. Observations: Coming to the question of determination of compensation made by the Reference Court, by relying on the Award, passed in the case of ONGC, in which, acquisition had been made in October, 1999, for a small area, and compensation had been determined at the rate of Rs.431 per square meter. In the absence of any other evidence, we rake the same into consideration for determining the compensation. However, we propose to make certain deductions. The calculation worked out by the Reference Court, by adding 10 per cent per annum comes to the figure of Rs.646.50 per square meter. We have to deduct approximately 24-25 per cent of the compensation towards development and smallness. The area that had been acquired for the purposes of ONGC was small but, considering the potentiality of land, we make this slightly lesser deduction; as deduction even up to 60 per cent is permissible. This deduction is made in the peculiar facts of the case, and considering the development that has taken place around that place. Thus, the compensation had been worked out at Rs.646.50 per square meter, deducting 24/25 per cent from the same, the value comes at rate of Rs.491 per square meter. This deduction is made in the peculiar facts of the case, and considering the development that has taken place around that place. Thus, the compensation had been worked out at Rs.646.50 per square meter, deducting 24/25 per cent from the same, the value comes at rate of Rs.491 per square meter. We award compensation at the rate of Rs.491 per square meter along with statutory benefits, the compensation that remains un-disbursed be paid within a period of three months from today. The appeals are allowed to the aforesaid extent.” 14. A bare perusal of the aforesaid observations of the Apex Court reveal that after determining the compensation of Rs.646.56/- per sq.mtr. and on the ground of development and smallness of the land in question i.e. lands of village Mansa, 24%-25% has been deducted and value is determined at Rs.491/- per sq.mtr. 15. Thus, there are four Section 4 notifications issued under the Act for acquiring the lands of village Mansa by the appellant. Those are as under: (i) Notification dated 13.10.1999 Exh.14-LAR 171-174 of 2005 (reliance placed by the appellant-ONGC). (ii) Notification dated 14.10.1999, for which the compensation of Rs.431/- per sq.mtr. has become final and has been accepted by the appellant-ONGC. (iii) Notification dated 26.08.2004, LAR No. 410 to 461 of 2006, wherein the Apex Court has awarded the amount of Rs.491/- per sq.mtr. that too after determining the amount of Rs.646.56/- and deducted 24%-25% on the ground of development and smallness. (iv) In the present case, section 4 notification of the Act dated 21.12.1999 for the lands acquired by the acquiring body-ONGC for the Drill Site. The reference Court as noted hereinabove has awarded Rs.435/- per sq.mtr. 16. Thus, the judgment and order passed by the Apex Court is premised on the lands acquired by the appellant-ONGC of village Mansa for the Drill Site, for which Section 4 notification of the Act was published on 13.10.1999 and the compensation of Rs.431/- per sq.mtr. awarded by the reference Court in LAR No. 90 of 2005 has become final. Considering the same, the Apex Court has determined the compensation of Rs.646.50 sq.mtr., for which Section 4 notification was issued on 26.08.2004. After deducting 24%-25% for smallness and development, the Supreme Court has determined the amount of Rs.491/- sq.mtr. awarded by the reference Court in LAR No. 90 of 2005 has become final. Considering the same, the Apex Court has determined the compensation of Rs.646.50 sq.mtr., for which Section 4 notification was issued on 26.08.2004. After deducting 24%-25% for smallness and development, the Supreme Court has determined the amount of Rs.491/- sq.mtr. Thus, setting an exemplar from the said amount of compensation of Rs.431 and Rs.491/-, in the present case, considering the Section 4 notification was issued on 21.12.1999, we do not find any infirmity or illegality committed by the reference Court in determining the compensation of Rs.435/- per sq.mtr. by the impugned judgment and award. 17. The only contention raised before this Court by the appellant to ignore the compensation of Rs.431/- per sq.mtr. as awarded by the reference Court vide order dated 28.03.2007 in LAR No. 90 of 2005 is that due to oversight, the acquiring body-ONGC did not challenge the aforesaid judgment and award at the relevant time. This Court cannot quash and set aside the judgment and award passed by the reference Court on such lame excuse that the appellant-ONGC through oversight did not challenge the judgment and award dated 28.03.2007, in wake of the fact that subsequently the Apex Court has already determined the compensation by placing reliance on such award. 18. It is also not in dispute that the claimants have been allowed to withdraw the entire compensation as awarded vide order dated 10.12.2007 passed below Exh.30 by the Tribunal pursuant to the execution proceedings initiated by the claimants. Thereafter, the present appeal has been filed belatedly after a delay of 497 days. 19. Thus, in view of the subsequent development, after passing of the impugned judgment and award and the confirmation of compensation of Rs.431/- per sq.mtr. for acquisition of the lands of the very same village by the very same acquiring body, the judgment and award dated 28.03.2007 passed in LAR No. 90 of 2005 having become final, we are not inclined to quash and set aside the aforesaid impugned judgment and award. 20. In light of the aforenoted observations, the present appeal stands rejected. No orders as to costs. 21. Record and proceedings to be sent back forthwith.