JUDGMENT : (PER : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE) 1. In all these group of appeals filed at the instance of the State, under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, read with section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the challenge is made to the judgment and award dated 20th September, 2018 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Jamnagar in Land Reference Case nos.367 of 2007 to 390 of 2007 (Main Land Reference Case no.367 of 2007). Since all the aforesaid reference cases were disposed of by the said common judgment and award, all these appeals were heard together and are disposed of by this common order. 2. In nutshell, the facts leading to the filing of the present appeals at the instance of the State are summarized hereunder :- 2.1 The proposal for acquiring various parcels of land situated at village Jiragadh, Taluka Jodiya, District Jamnagar was declared by issuing Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for the public purpose i.e. for the construction of Aji-4 Irrigation projects. The said notification was published in the Government Gazette on 26th April, 2001 followed by the Notification under Section 6 of the Act, which was published on 11th May, 2002 (Sic. 18th May, 2002). The affected persons, mainly, the land owners were issued notices and after extending the opportunity of hearing, the competent authority had passed an award under Section 11 of the Act being Award no.5 of 2000 on 18th January 2006, whereby the amount awarded as compensation for the acquired land was fixed at the rate of Rs.4.70 paisa per sq. mtr. for irrigated lands as the market value of the acquired land. 2.2 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the determination of the aforesaid award amount by the competent authority, the respective land owners have raised reference before the Collector, under Section 18 of the Act seeking enhancement of compensation. The aforesaid land reference applications were registered as Land Reference Case nos.368 of 2007, 369 of 2007, 371 of 2007, 374 of 2007, 377 of 2007, 382 of 2007, 384 of 2007 and 390 of 2007, before the learned 3rd Additional Senior Civil Judge at Jamnagar. 3. The aforesaid land reference applications were registered as Land Reference Case nos.368 of 2007, 369 of 2007, 371 of 2007, 374 of 2007, 377 of 2007, 382 of 2007, 384 of 2007 and 390 of 2007, before the learned 3rd Additional Senior Civil Judge at Jamnagar. 3. The learned Judge upon appreciation of the oral, as well as, documentary evidence brought on record by the original applicants, as well as, taking into consideration the documentary evidence brought on record by the respondent authorities, partly allowed the reference by common judgment thereby awarding Rs.50.30 per sq. mtr. in case of Jirayat land and Rs.75.40 per sq. mtr. in case of Bagayat land followed by the consequential benefits envisaged under Section 23(1)(A) and 23(2) of the Act. The Reference Court had also awarded proportionate costs to be realized from the respondent. Hence, these appeals. 4. Heard Mr. Adityasinh Jadeja and Mr. Akash Chhaya, learned AGPs for the appellant – State and Mr. K.M. Sheth, learned advocate on record for the respective respondents – original applicants. 5. During the course of hearing, learned advocates appearing for the respective parties have invited our attention to the reasons assigned by the learned Judge. It is submitted that only comparative instance, which has been brought on record by the original claimant was the judgment and order dated 12th July, 2017 passed by the learned 6th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Jamnagar in Land Reference Case nos.42 of 2006 to 66 of 2006 awarding additional amount of Rs.50/- per sq. mtr. 6. It was submitted by Mr. Sheth, learned advocate appearing for the respondent – original land owners that the aforesaid judgment and award of Reference Court was challenged by the State in an appeal under Section 54 of the Act before this Court, which was registered as First Appeal no.121 of 2019 and allied matters. The reliance was placed on the order dated 20th July, 2023 passed by the co-ordinate Bench, whereby by common CAV Judgment, the aforesaid appeals preferred by the State were dismissed. 7. Learned AGPs for the appellant – State were unable to dispute the aforesaid fact. The reliance was placed on the order dated 20th July, 2023 passed by the co-ordinate Bench, whereby by common CAV Judgment, the aforesaid appeals preferred by the State were dismissed. 7. Learned AGPs for the appellant – State were unable to dispute the aforesaid fact. However, they have placed reliance upon the grounds raised in the present appeals to contend that the learned Judge has in absence of any material to substantiate the case of the original applicants of similar in every aspect of location, fertility and future adaptability, has straight way accepted the claim by relying upon the determination of market value determined in Land Acquisition Reference Case nos.42 to 66 of 2006. 8. We had inquired from the learned AGPs, as to whether the State has filed any appeal challenging the order passed by the co-ordinate Bench in the aforesaid group of appeals. The learned AGP had fairly conceded that no appeals have been filed challenging the order passed by the co-ordinate Bench in the aforesaid group of appeals. Learned AGP has not been able to distinguish the facts of the case and has urged to pass appropriate orders. 9. The learned AGP had fairly conceded that no appeals have been filed challenging the order passed by the co-ordinate Bench in the aforesaid group of appeals. Learned AGP has not been able to distinguish the facts of the case and has urged to pass appropriate orders. 9. Considering the submissions made by the learned advocates for the respective parties and having perused the impugned judgment and award, we have been apprised by the learned advocate for the respondent – original land owners about the comparative details of acquisition in both the cases, the same is reproduced hereunder: Village : Jiragadh Taluka : Jodiya District : Jamnagar Meghpar Taluka : Jodiya District : Jamnagar FA No. 4213 of 2021 and other cognate Appeals 121 of 2019 and other cognate Appeals LAR No. 387 of 2007 and other cognate land reference cases 42 of 2006 and other cognate land reference cases Purpose Aji-4 Irrigation Scheme Aji-4 Irrigation Scheme Sec. 4 26th April, 2001 26th April, 2001 Sec. 6 18th May, 2002 14th February, 2002 Award u/s. 11 Awarded Rs.4.70 per square meters on 18th January 2006 in LAQ case 5 of 2000 Awarded Rs.5/- per square meters on 8th October 2005 in LAQ No.28 of 2000 Claim Rs.100/- per square meters Rs.100/- per square meters Reference Court awarded Rs.50.30 paisa per square meters as additional amount for Jirayat Land and Rs.75.45 paisa per square meters for Bagayat Land by order dated 28th September, 2018 Rs.50/- per square meters as additional amount of compensation for Jirayat land by order dated 12th July, 2017 Remarks Relied on judgment of reference court passed in LAR no.42 to 66 of 2006 of just adjoining village. Aforesaid judgment of the reference court confirmed by this Hon’ble Court by order dated 20th July, 2023 in First Appeals no.121 of 2019 with other first appeals. 10. Having noticed the aforesaid details, indisputably the lands of the original land owners have been acquired for the public purpose i.e. Aji-4 Irrigation Scheme by the appellant – State. The acquisition proceedings have been followed in accordance with law. The notification on comparison of the aforesaid details as emerge on record, in both the cases Section 4 Notification has been issued on the same day i.e. 26th April 2001. The acquisition proceedings have been followed in accordance with law. The notification on comparison of the aforesaid details as emerge on record, in both the cases Section 4 Notification has been issued on the same day i.e. 26th April 2001. Learned AGP is right in pointing-out that the only instance, which is brought on record for consideration by original land owners for determination of market value before the Reference Court was the common award passed in Land Acquisition Reference Case nos.42 to 66 of 2006 and allied matters at Exhs.47, 48, 69, 70, 71, 72 and 73. 11. The aforesaid acquisitions though relate to the different villages but situated in the same taluka : Jodiya and for the same public purpose i.e. for Aji-4 Irrigation Scheme. In the present case, the acquisition relates to lands situated in village Jiragadh, Taluka Jodiya, District Jamnagar, whereas in case of award produced at Exh.48 in main LAQ Case no.28 of 2000 relates to village Meghpar, Taluka Jodiya, District Jamnagar. The reference Court, based on Exh.47 has recorded a finding that the distance between two villages i.e. Jodiya and Meghpar are 30 kms. Whereas, in the present case, as per the Land Acquisition Officer in his award passed under Section 11 of the Act produced on record at Exh.17 has noted that the distance between Jodiya and Jiragadh is 24 kms. Thus, the Reference Court has arrived at a conclusion that both these villages are situated at almost similar distance from the headquarter Taluka i.e. Jodiya. 12. Apart from the aforesaid fact, the Court has formed the opinion that since the lands are situated in the same Taluka are having similar quality of fertility and therefore, considering the fact that Section 4 Notification was issued on the same day i.e. 26th April, 2001 and in respect of the same public purpose, has accepted to be the best comparative instance available for determination of market value of the lands acquired. 13. Admittedly, as evident from the record, the State has failed to examine any witness to bring on record the defence against the case put forward by the land owners. The only evidence, which is led by the State, is the letter dated 31st March, 2018 addressed to the District Panchayat at Exh.64 and the Resolution dated 25th October, 2012 passed by the State at Exh.65. The only evidence, which is led by the State, is the letter dated 31st March, 2018 addressed to the District Panchayat at Exh.64 and the Resolution dated 25th October, 2012 passed by the State at Exh.65. In absence of any error being pointed-out by the learned AGP to the aforesaid finding of facts recorded by the Reference Court, which is otherwise based on the evidence brought on record, we are inclined to follow the judgment passed by the co-ordinate Bench in the group of appeals, whereby the appeals preferred by the State has been dismissed upholding the award dated 12th July, 2007 passed by the Reference Court in Land Acquisition Reference Case nos.42 to 66 of 2006 awarding additional amount of compensation of Rs.50/- per sq. mtr. 14. We have gone through the aforesaid decision of the coordinate Bench. We would like to quote the relevant paragraphs of the decision rendered by the co-ordinate Bench. The same reads as under :- “22. It is found out from the record that as per the deposition of the claimants they were cultivating the said land and getting clear cut income of Rs.32,625/- from the crop of groundnut, Rs.32,812.50 Paisa from the crop of BT cotton, Rs.66,000/- from the crop of cumin and Rs.21,616.87/-from the crop of green gram (Moong). To substantiate their claim, the claimants have not produced any bills of sale and purchase of the seeds and fertilizers. The claimants have also not produced any evidence pertaining to expenditure carried out by them for the cultivation of the said crops. Only on the basis of 7/12 abstract, it can be derived that in the particular season and particular year, the farmer concerned was cultivating the particular crop. Except the 7/12 abstract, claimants have not produced any documents in support of their oral version. It is found out from the record that in the year 2001-02, only three of the claimants have cultivated the crop of cotton seed in a year, whereas other claimants have not cultivated the crop of cotton. It is clearly found out from the evidence of the witnesses that they were not cultivating the land three times in a year. In short, they were not yielding three season’s crop in a year. It is clearly found out from the evidence of the witnesses that they were not cultivating the land three times in a year. In short, they were not yielding three season’s crop in a year. In that event, the learned reference court has rightly considered and appreciated the evidence and held that the claimants were cultivating the land only for one season in a year and, accordingly, compensation was awarded. We do not find any error and perversity in the said findings of the reference court. 23. It is also found from the record that the government approved valuer’s report was produced by the claimants. The said witness was also examined by the claimants and he has very categorically deposed that as per his opinion, the price value of the Revenue Survey No. 437 is Rs.113/- per square meter. The said witness was cross-examined at length by the learned advocate for the defendants, but could not get success to disprove the evidence laid by the said witness. However, from the evidence of the said witness, it is found out that along with the report, the said valuer did not produce any evidence with regard to the fact that at the time of preparing the report, he had visited the other lands also and, therefore, the learned Reference Court has rightly held that on the basis of the said report, price hike cannot be awarded as claimed by the claimants. At the time of deriving particular amount of the value of the land, the learned Judge has considered the materials available on record and opined that almost from all 7/12 abstracts, it is found out that all the claimants had cultivated the land by yielding crop of groundnut and as per the evidence, it can be safely opined that all the claimants were yielding the crop of groundnut once in a year and as per the deposition of the witnesses, they were yielding around 150 ton, i.e, 3000 kg groundnut in one acre area of land which comes to 4000 square meter. Thus, the claimants were getting 0.75 gram crop of groundnut per square meter, and as per the price list produced by the Jamnagar APMC, in the year 2001, price of groundnut was Rs.290/- per 20 kg and if a calculation is made on the basis of the said price, then the claimants were getting Rs.10.87/- per square meter which is rounded off at Rs.11/- per square meter. Out of the said amount, after deducting 50% amount towards the expenditures, the claimants were getting clear cut income of Rs.5.50/- per square meter. Upon multiplying the said amount with 10 (5.50x10), the claimants are entitled to get total compensation of Rs.55/- per square meter. 24. It is found out from the above judgment that as per Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, at the time of determination of the amount of compensation on the basis of yield, statistic from the agricultural department as to nature of crops and price prevailing at that time is produced, in that event, the evidence objectively and dispassionately to reach to a finding on compensation is required to be calculated by multiplying 10 to the price of the yield and deducting 50% towards the cultivation expenses should be made. 25. After considering and appreciating the materials as well as documentary evidence available on record, the Reference Court has precisely concluded and awarded the amount which does not require any interference as we have not found any illegality and infirmity in the impugned judgment and award. We are in full agreement with the view adopted by the learned Reference Court and convinced with the reasons assigned and findings given by the learned Reference Court and of the opinion that the impugned judgment and award does not warrant any interference at the end of this Court. 26. In the result, all the first appeals preferred by the State Government are hereby dismissed. Record and Proceedings be sent back to the concerned trial court forthwith.” 15. In light of the aforesaid decision of the co-ordinate Bench upholding the determination of market value at the rate of Rs.55/- per sq. mtr., we could noticed that the reference court in the aforesaid acquisition has undertaken exercise to determine the market value of land on the basis of contemporary record by Yield method. 16. In light of the aforesaid decision of the co-ordinate Bench upholding the determination of market value at the rate of Rs.55/- per sq. mtr., we could noticed that the reference court in the aforesaid acquisition has undertaken exercise to determine the market value of land on the basis of contemporary record by Yield method. 16. It may be noted here that various factors are required to be kept in mind for determination of market value of the acquired land namely : (i) Existing geographical situation of the land, (ii) Existing use of the land, (iii) Already available advantages like proximity to National or State Highway or Road and/or developed area (iv) Market value of other land situated in the same locality/village/area and in the absence thereof adjacent or near land closer to the acquired land. 17. This brings us to examine as to whether the reference court has assigned any reasons before accepting the award determined LAR case no. 42/2006 as the comparative instance for the purpose of determination of market value of present acquisition. The Reference Court has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Thakarshibhai Devjibhai vs Executive Engineer, Gujarat And Anr., 2001 (9) SCC 584 , in similar sets of facts where the award amount in case of acquisition of lands of adjoining village were determined by yield method. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that if the distance of the two villages from where the land was acquired is nearby from the same headquarter and if any decision is a taken in respect of the land pertaining to any of the two villages, in that event, the basic principle of mode of calculation adopted in the earlier decision can be adopted in respect of the land acquired by the Acquiring Body subsequently of nearby village. The observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in para-12 are as under; "12. As we have said above the High Court fell into error by reducing the quantum of compensation on this basis. The reduction has been made for two reasons, one that the present acquisition is of larger area and the second the distance between the land under acquisition and Ex. 16 is about 5 kms. As we have said above the High Court fell into error by reducing the quantum of compensation on this basis. The reduction has been made for two reasons, one that the present acquisition is of larger area and the second the distance between the land under acquisition and Ex. 16 is about 5 kms. With reference to question of acquisition being of a larger area, the error is, when we scan we find for the acquisition of each land owner, It could not be said that the acquisition is of a large area. Largeness is merely when each land holders land is clubbed together then the area becomes large. Each landowners holdings are of small area. Even otherwise visioning in the line with submission for the State we find Ex. 16 is about two hectares of land which cannot be said to be of small piece of land. So far the other question of distance between the two classes of lands, that by itself cannot derogate the claim of the claimant unless there are some such other materials to show that quality and potentiality of such land is inferior. However, distance between the land under Ex. 16 and the present land even if they are 5 kms. apart would not be relevant, the relevancy could be, their distances from the Viramgam town. We find, as per map produced by the State the present acquired land is about 3 kms. away from it, while the land under Ex. 16 is about two kilometers away from it. This difference is not such to lead to reduce the rate of compensation, specially on the facts of this case. In the present case, as we have recorded above, it has been found that the quality including potentiality of land between Exh. 16 and the present one are similar. No evidence has been led on behalf of the State to find difference between the two. In view of this, the inference drawn by the High Court for reducing the compensation by Rs. 10/- per sq. mtr. cannot be sustained." 18. It would be appropriate to consider the principle laid down by The Hon'ble Supreme court in (2008) 14 SCC 745 ONGC v. Ramesh Bhai Jivan Bhai Patel. It is held that in the absence of any material on record the indicative prices of the adjoining village can be considered by the reference court. 19. mtr. cannot be sustained." 18. It would be appropriate to consider the principle laid down by The Hon'ble Supreme court in (2008) 14 SCC 745 ONGC v. Ramesh Bhai Jivan Bhai Patel. It is held that in the absence of any material on record the indicative prices of the adjoining village can be considered by the reference court. 19. Applying the aforesaid principles in the facts of the case, upon appreciating the overall evidence, it has emerged on record that except for the award passed by the reference court in case of acquisition of lands for the same public purpose of village Meghpar situated in the same taluka, no other comparative sale instances of village Jodiya or any other material is led by either parties for the purpose of determination of market value of acquired lands. In view of the aforesaid parameters, we find that the aforesaid award of land though situated in different villages fall in the same taluka and were acquired for the same public purpose, which were intended to be acquired by virtue of same date of section 4 notification, to be considered as the comparative instance for the purpose of determination of market value in the present case. The original claimants have placed on record the certified copies of 7-12 extracts of respective acquired landsat EXH. 20 to 43. Though the claimants have come forward with a case of taking three crops in a year, the reference court upon appreciation of evidence in the form of 7-12 extracts has treated lands to be fertile and has noticed that one seasonal crop ie. Kharif crop is taken in a year. Considering the geographical situation of the lands acquired as against the lands of village Meghpar, we could notice similar findings are recorded by the coordinate bench while dismissing the appeals. Thus, the aforesaid comparative analysis of the lands suggest that the potentiality of the lands is similar. Hence, in absence of any contrary facts or material brought on record, we find no error in the approach of reference court by treating the award produced on record at EXH. 48 and allied matters as the best comparative instance to determine the market value of lands acquired in the present case. 20. In the result, all the appeals preferred by the State are hereby dismissed. 48 and allied matters as the best comparative instance to determine the market value of lands acquired in the present case. 20. In the result, all the appeals preferred by the State are hereby dismissed. In view of dismissal of the main appeals, the connected Civil Applications also stand disposed of. Registry is directed to send back R. & P. to the concerned Reference Court.