ORDER : 1. The present First Appeal is filed by the appellant – State of Gujarat through Special Land Acquisition Officer & Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition Department, Collector Office, Anand, under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) read with Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “the Code, 1908”) challenging the Judgment and Award dated 20.02.2020 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Anand (hereinafter referred to as “the Judge”) in Land Acquisition Reference Case Nos.86/2014, whereby the learned Judge partly allowed the Reference filed by the respondent herein. 2. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are as under : 2.1 It is the case of the appellant that, the land situated at village: Vasad, District: Anand was acquired for the public purpose of Six Lane Highway joining Bagodara-Vataman- Tarapur-Vasad and accordingly, the appellant No.2 herein had undertaken the entire legal process as prescribed in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. It is further the case of the appellant that, the Notification under Section 4 of the Act was published on 18.05.2009, Notification under Section 6 of the Act was published on 31.12.2009 and Notification under Section 9 of the Act was also duly published and the hearing was held. Thereafter, in LAQ case No.1 of 2008, the Award under Section 11 of the Act was passed on 25.01.2012, whereby, the appellant No.2 awarded an amount of Rs.51/- per square meter as compensation for AB type land and Rs.80/- per square meter as compensation for CD type land respectively, the appellant authority granted 30% solatium as well as 12% price rise from the date of Notification under Section 4 of the Act till the date of Award. Being dissatisfied by the amount awarded, the present respondent (original claimant) filed reference under Section 18 of the Act seeking Rs.900/- per sq. mtr. as compensation. 2.2 It is the say of the appellants that, the land was acquired for public purpose for which the entire legal process was undertaken and Notification under Section 4, 6 and 9 of the Act were published. The appellant No.2 herein had invited objections against the acquisition of land for which hearing was held, the objections were raised by the interested parties, but no evidence were produced. The appellant No.2 herein had invited objections against the acquisition of land for which hearing was held, the objections were raised by the interested parties, but no evidence were produced. The compensation under Section 11 of the Act was awarded in due diligence after considering 10 sale instances which were effected between the year 2004 and 2009 which range from Rs.23/- to Rs.112/- per square meter for the Jirayat (non-irrigated) Land. The Special Land Acquisition Officer had taken into consideration various other factors such as location, fertility of the land, crops and prospects of development of the village. The compensation awarded is just, proper and reasonable and the respondent has accepted the said amount of compensation awarded by the appellant No.2 under Section 11 of the Act. 2.3 It is further the case of the appellant that, against the aforesaid Award of the Special Land Acquisition Officer, the respondent herein preferred Reference under Section 18 of the Act. The learned Judge registered the said land reference as Land Acquisition Reference Case No.86 of 2014. The other References arising out of the same Land Acquisition proceedings registered as Land Acquisition Reference Case Nos.77 of 2014, 79 of 2014 and 81 of 2014 to 86 of 2014. The learned Judge by Judgment and Award dated 20.02.2020 partly allowed the Reference of the respondent herein observing that the respondent is entitled to get compensation of Rs.900/- per Sq. Mtr. for the acquired land. It was also observed that the respondent is also entitled for a 12% price rise which is granted under Section 23(1)(a) of the Act. It was further observed that the respondent is also entitled for 30% solatium under Section 23(2) of the Act. The learned Judge has also awarded 9% p.a. running interest for the period of one year from the date of taking possession of the acquired land and thereafter at the rate of 15% p.a. till realization of the amount payable under Section 28(2) of the amount under the Act. 2.4 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned Judgment and Award dated 20.02.2020 passed by the learned Judge in Land Acquisition Reference Case Nos.86/2014, the appellant herein has preferred the present group of First Appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 read with Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. 3. Heard Mr. 2.4 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned Judgment and Award dated 20.02.2020 passed by the learned Judge in Land Acquisition Reference Case Nos.86/2014, the appellant herein has preferred the present group of First Appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 read with Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. 3. Heard Mr. Meet M. Thakkar, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the appellant and Mr.Amar Mithani, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent herein. 4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader has submitted that the award passed under Section 11 of the Act was in consonance with the provisions of the Act and after considering relevant materials and the facts in due diligence and after considering the sale instances which were effected from the year 2004 to 2009 and the range from Rs.23 to Rs.112 per Sq. Mtr. for non- irrigated (Jirayat) and also after considering relevant factors, the Acquisition Officer has passed the impugned award under Section 11 of the Act. He has submitted that, against the said award passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, the original land owner being claimant – respondent herein preferred reference under Section 18 of the Act before the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Anand and the same was registered as Land Acquisition Reference Case No.86 of 2014 and different acquisition reference cases were dealt with by the common judgment and award and consolidated all the cases being Nos.77/2014, 79/2014 and 81/2014 to 86/2014. He has submitted that the learned Judge erred in merely relying upon the deposition of the original claimants and has erred in not considering the factors taken into consideration by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. 4.1 He has submitted that the learned Judge ought to have considered that the present respondent – original claimant have not produced any evidence showing his income from the cultivation of the said land in question. The claimant has only produced a valuation of report which does not give any details as to which are the factors that were taken into consideration by the valuer while fixing the market price. He has further submitted that the learned Judge ought to have considered that the Special Land Acquisition Officer had taken into consideration around 10 sale instances effected during the 5 years prior to the notification under Section 4 in the present case. He has further submitted that the learned Judge ought to have considered that the Special Land Acquisition Officer had taken into consideration around 10 sale instances effected during the 5 years prior to the notification under Section 4 in the present case. The Learned Judge has also not considered that the Special Land Acquisition Officer visited the land in question and verified the fertility and other developments in the proximity of the land in question. 4.2 The learned Assistant Government Pleader has submitted that the learned Judge has erred in shifting all the burden of producing evidence upon the present appellants – original defendant being State Authority. He has also submitted that the learned Judge has erred in not considering the fact that the land in question is appox. 10 kilometers away from Anand District and further the learned Judge has erred in not considering the fact that the respondent – original claimant has not produced any sale proceeds from the cultivation of the said land. He has also submitted that the learned Judge has erred in awarding higher compensation to the respondent herein despite the fact that, if Government Resolution published three years prior to the acquisition are taken into consideration then the Jantri price quoted by the Government is on the lesser side. He has further submitted that the learned Judge has erred in not considering the awards passed in Land Acquisition Reference Cases for adjacent village and the amount of compensation awarded to the land owners there. He has submitted that, even if the prices of land in adjacent village and the date of publishing of notification under Section 4 of the Act in the present case is considered, the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Judge is on the higher side. 4.3 It was submitted by the learned Assistant Government Pleader that, the learned Judge ought to have taken into consideration the oral evidence of the Land Acquisition Officer in its true perspective. It was submitted that the Land Acquisition Officer has categorically narrated the entire aspect of the matter, which the officer had considered while fixing the rate of the land and after taking into consideration overall facts and circumstances, the compensation was awarded, however, the learned Judge has ignored the same and passed the impugned award, which is on higher side. It was submitted that the Land Acquisition Officer has categorically narrated the entire aspect of the matter, which the officer had considered while fixing the rate of the land and after taking into consideration overall facts and circumstances, the compensation was awarded, however, the learned Judge has ignored the same and passed the impugned award, which is on higher side. It was further submitted by the learned AGP that, the learned Judge ought to have appreciated that the Special Land Acquisition Officer has awarded adequate compensation and there is no reason for enhancing the same and, therefore, the impugned Judgment and Award is required to be quashed and set aside. It was further submitted that the compensation received by the respondent was just, fair and proper and the same were not required to be enhanced. It was also submitted that the learned Judge erred in interfering with the award of the Special Land Acquisition Officer without there being any cogent and convincing reason although the Special Land Acquisition Officer had taken into consideration all the relevant factors and in light of the sale deeds of past 5 years of the lands situated nearby the acquired land. 5. As against that, learned advocate Mr.Amar D. Mithani appearing for the respondent – original claimant has submitted that the impugned Judgment and Award passed by the learned Judge is just and proper and no interference is required to be called for. He has submitted that there are group of acquisition awards passed by the Acquiring body under Section 11 of the Act and in all, 83 parcel of lands of different survey numbers were acquired and the Acquiring body took the possession of the said parcel of lands for the purpose of widening of the roads and in all the other land reference cases viz. LRC Case No.1 of 2014 to 4 of 2014, the Acquiring body accepted the impugned Award passed by the Reference Court on 20.02.2020 and decided not to challenge the award in the said group of reference. LRC Case No.1 of 2014 to 4 of 2014, the Acquiring body accepted the impugned Award passed by the Reference Court on 20.02.2020 and decided not to challenge the award in the said group of reference. Even in another group of Land Reference Cases being No.28 of 2014 to 34 of 2014, 39, 42 and 44 of 2014, 68 of 2014, 67 to 72 of 2014, 74 to 76 of 2014, 79 of 2014, 8 of 2015 and 12 of 2015 with the same subject parcel of lands, wherein also, the Acquiring body has accepted the impugned award and decided not to challenge the same. 5.1 Learned advocate Mr.Mithani for the respondent has further submitted that, in all the aforesaid 6 group of cases, by the judgment and award dated 20.02.2020, the Trial Court has awarded the total sum of Rs.900/- per sq. mtr., wherein, in 5 group of cases, the State Government, Acquiring body has accepted the judgment and award and accordingly, even the payments are made to the respective land owners. He has further submitted that there is no difference, worth the name, relating to the size of the lands or in the nature, character type of the land in the present groups of cases, where the award is accepted and amount is paid. He has further submitted that the learned Judge decided all the aforesaid 6 group of Land Reference Cases and partly allowed the Reference cases and enhanced the compensation to the tune of Rs.900/- per sq. mtr. and all the acquired lands are of Vasad, which is situated 15 Km. away from the Taluka Headquarter – Anand. He has submitted that the learned Judge has considered the average of the Jantri value prescribed by the Government and accordingly, a sum of Rs.912.51 per sq. mtr. was arrived. He has also submitted that the learned Judge has relied upon the award passed by the Deputy Collector and the Competent Authority-N.H. 8, Anand for the National Highway No.8, wherein, the notification for acquisition was published in the year 2012 and an amount of Rs.1405/- per sq. mtr. was awarded on 03.06.2013, accordingly, deduction of Rs.900/- per sq. mtr. was arrived upon. mtr. was awarded on 03.06.2013, accordingly, deduction of Rs.900/- per sq. mtr. was arrived upon. 5.2 Learned advocate Mr.Mithani has submitted that this Court in First Appeal No.1474 of 1981, by the judgment dated 21.06.1999, for the land of Vasad, wherein, Section 4 notification was published on 11.11.1976, acquisition for the purpose of Ambali-Bhetasi-Vasad Raos, awarded a sum of Rs.780.00 per Acre, relying upon the 10% rise per annum formula. He has therefore, urged that the present First Appeal be dismissed and the impugned Judgment and Award be quashed and set aside. 6. Heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and perused the material placed on record. It appears that except the present group of reference, the Acquiring body has accepted all the Awards passed by the Reference Court and decided not to challenge the same. Under this background of facts, in the present appeals there is legal issue involved. So far as the same subject parcel of lands, if the Acquiring authority has accepted the similar award qua other group of award passed by the Reference Court, then qua the present First Appeal, whether the Acquiring body can challenge the impugned Judgment and Award or not. 6.1 At this stage, it would be appropriate to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Shivappa Etc. Etc. Vs. The Chief Engineer and Others, reported in 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 312, wherein, it has been held and observed in paragraphs 8 to 11 as under :- “Land Acquisition - The State or its instrumentalities cannot be permitted to adopt an attitude of pick and choose. If the State has accepted the award of the Reference Court in respect of some of the claimants, it cannot be permitted to adopt a different treatment to the other claimants. Such an attitude smacks of patent discrimination. 8. Another factor that needs to be taken into consideration is that the respondent-State itself had filed applications before the High Court for withdrawal of nine appeals arising out of acquisition under the same notification. 9. In the said case also, the Reference court had granted compensation at the rate of Rs. 4,61,250/- per acre. The High Court, vide order dated 08.03.2016 has allowed the said appeal(s) to be withdrawn and the same had been placed on record before this Court in I.A. No. 59170 of 2016. 9. In the said case also, the Reference court had granted compensation at the rate of Rs. 4,61,250/- per acre. The High Court, vide order dated 08.03.2016 has allowed the said appeal(s) to be withdrawn and the same had been placed on record before this Court in I.A. No. 59170 of 2016. Though a period of more than six years had lapsed, the said position is not contested by the respondents. 10. The State or its instrumentalities cannot be permitted to adopt an attitude of pick and choose. 11. If the State has accepted the award of the Reference Court in respect of some of the claimants, it cannot be permitted to adopt a different treatment to the other claimants. Such an attitude smacks of patent discrimination.” 6.2 In the above stated facts and circumstances and in view of the reported decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Shivappa Etc. Etc. (Supra), it is well settled that if for the same subject parcels of land, acquired for the same purpose and similarly situated, the Acquiring body has accepted the award qua the others, then in another parcels of land owners and in similar facts of the case, the Acquiring body cannot challenge the award passed by the Reference Court relying upon the ratio laid down by the Hon’vle Apex Court and under the said circumstances that the Acquiring body has accepted the award passed by the Reference Court in said group of reference. Considering all these aspects and considering the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court, I am of the opinion that the present First Appeal fails and the same deserves to be dismissed. 7. In view of the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court vide common oral judgment dated 11.10.2023 passed in First Appeal No.4017 of 2023 and allied appeals, the issue is settled and the same is not able to controvert by learned AGP. 8. In view of the above, the appeal is dismissed accordingly. The Acquiring Authority is hereby directed to pay the amount of compensation to the respondent within a period of 8 weeks from the date of this order with all the subsequent reliefs before the Reference Court alongwith the amount of solatium, interest, etc, as awarded by the Reference Court in the impugned Judgment and Award. The Acquiring Authority is hereby directed to pay the amount of compensation to the respondent within a period of 8 weeks from the date of this order with all the subsequent reliefs before the Reference Court alongwith the amount of solatium, interest, etc, as awarded by the Reference Court in the impugned Judgment and Award. Registry is directed to draw the decree and award accordingly in terms of this judgment. Notice is discharged. 9. Connected Civil Application also stands disposed of.