JUDGMENT : Nisha M. Thakore, J. 1. The appellant is aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 17.05.2017 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Dahod in Land Reference Case Nos. 5 of 2011 to 22 of 2011 (main Land Reference Case No.5 of 2011) passed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”). By the said judgment and award, the learned Judge has partly allowed the petitions of the original claimants by granting additional compensation at the rate of Rs.383/- per sq mtrs for the land acquired, with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of taking possession or passing of an award, whichever is earlier, till one year and thereafter at the rate of 15% p.a. till realization. The learned Judge has also held claimants entitled to additional compensation at the rate of 12% p.a. under Section 23(1-A) and 30% solatium under Section 23(2) of the Act, with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of taking over possession or award, whichever is earlier, till one year and thereafter at the rate of 15% p.a. till realization of the amount payable under Section 28 of the Act. 2. The facts necessary for adjudication of the issue involved in brief are as under: 2.1. The original claimants are the landowners affected by the acquisition of their agricultural land situated at village Jalat, Tal & Dist. Dahod. The Notification by the State under Section 4 of the Act came to be published on 18.05.2009 declaring the intention of acquisition of land specified in the schedule for public purpose for construction of new Railway Line between the Dahod and Indor (MP). The said Notification was followed by Notification under Section 6 of the Act which was published on 27.07.2009. The interested persons, mainly affected landowners, were served with the notice under Section 9(3)(4) of the Act by the Special Land Acquisition Officer seeking objection from them. At the end of the proceedings, the Special Land Acquisition Officer had determined the amount of compensation at the rate of Rs.16.52/- per sq mtrs for the acquired lands by passing appropriate orders under Section 11 of the Act. At the end of the proceedings, the Special Land Acquisition Officer had determined the amount of compensation at the rate of Rs.16.52/- per sq mtrs for the acquired lands by passing appropriate orders under Section 11 of the Act. The original claimant being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid amount of compensation as determined by the Special Land Acquisition Officer had preferred application on 11.08.2010 within the prescribed period of limitation seeking reference under Section 18 of the Act for the purpose of determination of just and adequate compensation. The Land Reference Cases were registered before the Court of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Dahod on 22.02. 2011, which were registered as Land Reference Cases No.5 of 2011 to 22 of 2011. All the aforesaid cases were heard together and decided by the learned Judge by common impugned judgment and award. 2.2. During the course of adjudication of the aforesaid claim petitions, the original claimants a part from the examination in chief of the claimant of Land Reference Case No.8 of 2011 viz. Bilwad Rumalbhai Madubhai at Exh.30, had also led various documentary evidence which mainly included certified copy of the village form no.7/12 of the respective lands as well as certified copy of village map at Exh.30, certified copy of judgment and dated 19.4.2006 passed by the learned Judge in earlier acquisition proceedings being LR Case No.226 of 2004 at Exh.31 and certified copy of judgment passed by the High Court of Gujarat in First Appeal No.3567 of 2009 at Exh.32. As against the aforesaid evidence of the original claimants, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the opponent – State Authorities had presented their objection by submitting a written statement at Exh,9. The acquiring body had also tendered their written statement at Exh.6. The State Authorities have placed on record the copy of minute submitted by the District Land Valuation Committee dated 19.10.2009 along with report of Nagar Niyojak at Exh.44 and had examined one Mr. Gamit Padmaraj Amarsing, the Deputy Collector and Prant Officer, Dahod (Land Acquisition Officer). The acquiring body had examined their officer Sandip R. Sinh who at the relevant time was in charge as Executive Engineer (Construction) Railways, Ratlam, at Exh.46. The parties were permitted to place on record their written argument and the judgments relied upon. Gamit Padmaraj Amarsing, the Deputy Collector and Prant Officer, Dahod (Land Acquisition Officer). The acquiring body had examined their officer Sandip R. Sinh who at the relevant time was in charge as Executive Engineer (Construction) Railways, Ratlam, at Exh.46. The parties were permitted to place on record their written argument and the judgments relied upon. Considering the aforesaid evidence and the submissions made by the respective parties, the learned Judge proceeded to decide the issue which were framed at Exh.10, which reads as under : “1. Whether the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer is not fair and adequate ? 2. What additional compensation the claimant is entitled ? 3. What order and award ?” 2.3. Ultimately, the learned Judge by impugned judgment and award has partly allowed the claim petition with proportionate costs and all consequential benefits have been extended to the original claimants. Hence, these appeals at the instance of the opponent no.3 – Railways under Section 54 of the Act. 3. This group of appeals were notified for admission hearing before the Coordinate Bench and considering the grounds raised, these appeals were admitted by order dated 14.11.2017. Along with the appeals, the appellant has also moved Civil Application seeking stay against the impugned judgment and award. This Court on condition of deposit of the entire amount of compensation had granted stay against the execution, implementation and operation of the impugned judgment and award. Pursuant to the deposit of the award amount, this Court by order dated 16.1.2018 had directed the Reference Court to release 50% of the amount deposited by the Railway Administration in favour of the claimants. Remaining 50% was directed to be invested in any Nationalized Bank in cumulative fixed deposit initially for a period of five years, which was directed to be renewed from time to time till final disposal of all these appeals. The original Fixed Deposits Receipts were directed to be retained in the custody of the Reference Court. 4. All these appeals were taken up for final hearing and were heard together since the appeals arise out of the common judgment and award passed by the learned Reference Court passed in a group of Land Reference Cases, the same are decided and disposed of by this common judgment and award. 5. Ms. 4. All these appeals were taken up for final hearing and were heard together since the appeals arise out of the common judgment and award passed by the learned Reference Court passed in a group of Land Reference Cases, the same are decided and disposed of by this common judgment and award. 5. Ms. Archana Amin, learned advocate for the appellant- Railway Administration has, at the outset, invited our attention to the reasons assigned by the Reference Court. According to learned advocate, the Reference Court has not undertaken any independent exercise to determine the market value but has rather chose to refer and rely upon the judgment passed by the Reference Court in Land Reference Case No.89 of 1990, which pertains to acquisition of land situated in Dahod Town which is a different village. Learned advocate has placed on record the comparative chart of the details of the aforesaid case, as against the present case as well as list of evidence produced by the claimants to assist this Court. She has further pointed out that so far as the acquisition of land of LAR Case No.89 of 1990 was concerned, the same was for a different public purpose as compared to the present case where the lands have been acquired for construction of new railway line between Dahod and Indore (MP). She has further pointed out that Section 4 Notification in the aforesaid LAR Case was issued way back in the year 1988, whereas, in the present case, the Notification was issued on 18.05.2009. She has further pointed out that the Special Land Acquisition Officer had determined the market value in the aforesaid cases at the rate of Rs.25/- per sq mtrs, which was enhanced to Rs.95/- per sq mtrs by the Reference Court. She has fairly pointed out that the aforesaid order of the Reference Court was not taken in appeal. She has submitted that in the case of acquisition of land situated at village Punsari, which was acquired for the different public purpose for construction of State Sales Tax Check Post. By referring to the aforesaid diversity, she has submitted that the learned Reference Court had committed gross error in taking into consideration the aforesaid judgment and award and upon comparison of the period of gap of 10 years, had enhanced the amount of compensation by determining the market value at the rate of Rs.175/- per sq mtrs. By referring to the aforesaid diversity, she has submitted that the learned Reference Court had committed gross error in taking into consideration the aforesaid judgment and award and upon comparison of the period of gap of 10 years, had enhanced the amount of compensation by determining the market value at the rate of Rs.175/- per sq mtrs. According to her, the acquisition of lands at Punsari and the subject lands, there was a huge gap of 20 years. It is submitted that it is settled law that applying annual increase was therefore, highly unsafe. It was submitted that even in the previous award, the Reference Court has taken recourse of appropriate escalation. She has further pointed out that a copy of the said judgment and award passed in LAR Case Nos.226 of 2004 to 230 of 2004 dated 19.04.2006 for the adjoining village Punsari, Tal: Dahod was produced by the original claimants at Exh.31. Against the said judgment and award, the State Authorities had approached in appeal under Section 54 of the Act before this Court, The said appeals were registered as First Appeal No.3536 of 2007 to First Appeal No.3540 of 2007. In the aforesaid group of appeals, the learned Single Judge by the judgment dated 09.01.2014 had not entertained the appeals and had confirmed the enhanced compensation awarded by the Reference Court at the rate of Rs.175/- per sq mtrs in respect of land of the adjoining village Punsari. Copy of the aforesaid decision of this Court was also placed for consideration in the original proceedings before the Reference Court at Exh.32. By referring to the aforesaid facts, learned counsel has emphasized on the fact that the learned Judge committed serious error in not appreciating the fact that the earlier award was passed based on the award passed in the case of acquisition of land situated within the limits of Dahod Town. According to learned counsel, present acquisition is concerned to the lands which are situated in the interior part of the Dahod precisely within the limits of village Jalat. By referring to the aforesaid fact, she has pointed out that the said lands were abutting on the State National Highway. She has further submitted that no reason has been assigned by the Reference Court by comparing nature and potentiality of the lands which are situated in to different villages. By referring to the aforesaid fact, she has pointed out that the said lands were abutting on the State National Highway. She has further submitted that no reason has been assigned by the Reference Court by comparing nature and potentiality of the lands which are situated in to different villages. In such circumstances, the judgment passed in the aforesaid Land Reference Cases could not be treated as a comparable instance for the purpose of determination of market value of the lands acquired in the present case. In this set of facts, learned counsel pressed into service the legal principles laid down in various judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, as under : (1). Kanwar Singh and Others reported in (1998) 8 SCC 136 . (2). General Manager Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited vs. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel and Another reported in (2008) 14 SCC 745 . (3). Lal Chand vs. Union of India and Another reported in (2009) 15 SCC 769 . 6. Mr. Nikunt Rawal, learned advocates for the respondentsoriginal claimants has strongly disputed the aforesaid submissions of the appellant counsel. He had relied upon a recent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of The Central Warehousing Corporation Vs. Thakur Dwarka Kalan Ul-Maruf Baraglan Wala (dead) & Ors., neutral citation 2023 INSC 940 . It was pointed out that the Court had after analyzing various decisions on issue including the judgment of Rameshbhai Jivanbhai (supra) had considered 8% annual increase with cumulative effect, even in the case where there was huge gap of 11 years whereas in the present case the reference court has simply applied 10% rise as against the proved market value of previous award. Mr. Rawal had also relied upon decision of this court in the case of Executive Engineer ( Construction ) vs. Shatnaben W/o Naginbhai Patel, First Appeal No. 3053 of 2017 and allied matters order dated 08.02.2024. Learned counsel has placed on record the chart of cumulative annual increase, if applied in the facts of the case while applying legal principles would yield even higher market value as compared to what has been awarded by the Reference Court. He has therefore submitted that the market value determined by the reference court calls for no interference in the present appeals and has therefore prayed for dismissal of the appeals. He has therefore submitted that the market value determined by the reference court calls for no interference in the present appeals and has therefore prayed for dismissal of the appeals. He has further urged to release and disburse the award amount as the original claimants are small marginal farmers belonging to Tribal area whose lands have been acquired since long are awaiting compensation. 7. Looking at the arguments canvassed by the learned counsel for the railways, more particularly the observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court made in case of Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel, (supra), the question arises for this court in the present appeals is as to whether the reference court committed any error in applying methodology of applying 10% rise annually on the proved market value in the previous award of the lands of adjoining village. 8. The methodology of applying 10% increase annually on the proved market value in acquisition proceedings of adjoining villages is a recognized mode. With a view to arrive at a correct market value of the acquired land with reference to the date of publication of Section 4 notification, in the case of Special Land Acquisition Officer, BTDA, Bagalkote v. Mohd. Hanief Sahib Bawa Sahib, (2002) 3 SCC 688 : AIR 2002 SC 1558 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court also worked out the market value of the acquired land by taking into consideration the price fixed under an old comparable sale transaction as the base value and after granting appreciation at the rate of 10% per annum on every subsequent year. 9. To appreciate the controversy involved in the present appeal, before delving into the issue, appropriate would be to set out relevant paragraph Nos. 13 to 16 of the judgment in Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel (supra), which has been heavily relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant Railway. The emphasis has been made by referring to following observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court : “13. Primarily, the increase in land prices depends on four factors - situation of the land, nature of development in surrounding area, availability of land for development in the area, and the demand for land in the area. In rural areas unless there is any prospect of development in the vicinity, increase in prices would be slow, steady and gradual, without any sudden spurts or jumps. In rural areas unless there is any prospect of development in the vicinity, increase in prices would be slow, steady and gradual, without any sudden spurts or jumps. On the other hand, in urban or semi-urban areas, where the development is faster, where the demand for land is high and where there is construction activity all around, the escalation in market price is at a much higher rate, as compared to rural areas. In some pockets in big cities, due to rapid development and high demand for land, the escalations in prices have touched even 30% to 50% or more per year, during the nineties. 14. On the other extreme, in remote rural areas where there was no chance of any development and hardly any buyers, the prices stagnated for years or rose marginally at a nominal rate of 1% or 2% per annum. There is thus a significant difference in increases in market value of lands in urban/semiurban areas and increases in market value of lands in the rural areas. Therefore if the increase in market value in urban/semi-urban areas is about 10% to 15% per annum, the corresponding increases in rural areas would at best be only around half of it, that is about 5% to 7.5% per annum. This rule of thumb refers to the general trend in the nineties, to be adopted in the absence of clear and specific evidence relating to increase in prices. Where there are special reasons for applying a higher rate of increase, or any specific evidence relating to the actual increase in prices, then the increase to be applied would depend upon the same. 15. 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. 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. 16. Much more unsafe is the recent trend to determine the market value of acquired lands with reference to future sale transactions or acquisitions. To illustrate, if the market value of a land acquired in 1992 has to be determined and if there are no sale transactions/acquisitions of 1991 or 1992 (prior to the date of preliminary notification), the statistics relating to sales/acquisitions in future, say of the years 1994-1995 or 1995-1996 are taken as the base price and the market value in 1992 is worked back by making deductions at the rate of 10% to 15% per annum. How far is this safe? One of the fundamental principles of valuation is that the transactions subsequent to the acquisition should be ignored for determining the market value of acquired lands, as the very acquisition and the consequential development would accelerate the overall development of the surrounding areas resulting in a sudden or steep spurt in the prices. Let us illustrate. Let us assume there was no development activity in a particular area. The appreciation in market price in such area would be slow and minimal. But if some lands in that area are acquired for a residential/commercial/industrial layout, there will be all round development and improvement in the infrastructure/amenities/facilities in the next one or two years, as a result of which the surrounding lands will become more valuable. Even if there is no actual improvement in infrastructure, the potential and possibility of improvement on account of the proposed residential/commercial/industrial layout will result in a higher rate of escalation in prices. Even if there is no actual improvement in infrastructure, the potential and possibility of improvement on account of the proposed residential/commercial/industrial layout will result in a higher rate of escalation in prices. As a result, if the annual increase in market value was around 10% per annum before the acquisition, the annual increase of market value of lands in the areas neighbouring the acquired land, will become much more, say 20% to 30%, or even more on account of the development/proposed development. Therefore, if the percentage to be added with reference to previous acquisitions/sale transactions is 10% per annum, the percentage to be deducted to arrive at a market value with reference to future acquisitions/sale transactions should not be 10% per annum, but much more. The percentage of standard increase becomes unreliable. Courts should therefore avoid determination of market value with reference to subsequent/future transactions. Even if it becomes inevitable, there should be greater caution in applying the prices fetched for transactions in future. Be that as it may.” (Emphasis supplied) 10. Indisputably, there is no evidence of any comparable sale transaction of the relevant time of the land available in the neighborhood. In such circumstances, we have to look for the proved market value of the land of the adjoining village: Punsari. It is on record that with a view to acquire nearby land in the year 1999, a notification under Section 4 was issued on 16.07.1999, which culminated in passing of an award. The market value fixed by the Collector was assailed in reference before the Reference Court, at Dahod whereby by award dated 09.01.2014 passed in LAR no. 226 of 2004, enhanced and fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 199.50ps. Per sq. mrts. There is, thus, a gap of almost ten years. In view of the observations made by the Supreme Court in paragraph No. 15 of the Ramesh Bhai Jivianbhai Patel (supra), the mode of determining the market value on the basis of annual increase from 10 to 15% with cumulative effect would be applicable in a case where the proved market rate relied on precedes the subject acquisition by only a few years i.e. upto 4 to 5 years and beyond that it may not be safe even if the proved market value is in relation to a nearby land. 11. 11. Thus, reading the aforesaid observations, there is no straight jacket formula to consider 10 % rise annually in each and every case where the base value of acquired land of adjoining village is proved and there is a gap of a few years between two notifications. Essentially surrounding circumstances are equally required to be taken into consideration to apply annual rise on the proved market value. We have the benefit of a recent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme court, as pointed out by the learned Counsel for the respondent, the issue has been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Central Warehousing Corporation Ltd.,(supra). In the aforesaid decision the Hon'ble Supreme Court after considering the earlier views rendered, held that to determine just and fair compensation in cases where comparable sales of the nearby land are not available, it would be safe to provide increase at market value of the acquired land @ 8 to 15 % and that, too, with cumulative effect. While holding so strong reliance was placed on the relevant observations it’s earlier decision in Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel (supra). For our benefit, we would like to refer to the relevant observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Central Warehousing Corporation (supra) and are reproduced hereunder:— “15. The law on the point of annual increase whether on cumulative basis or non-cumulative basis and the rate of annual increase to be applied are thus to be considered. Based upon the same, a balance and equitable compensation needs to be determined in the present case.” 16. The following cases have been relied upon by the parties with respect to determining the just compensation. (i) General Manager, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited v. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel (supra), (ii) Ashrafi v. State of Haryana, (2013) 5 SCC 527 (iii) Narbadi Devi v. State of Haryana, (iv) Ramrao Shankar Tapase v. Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, (v) State of Haryana v. Subhash Chander, (2023) 5 SCC 435 17. The case which was referred to by the High Court was Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel (supra). The case which was referred to by the High Court was Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel (supra). It no doubt referred to determining compensation on the basis of annual increase with cumulative effect, but at the same time it had put a caution that such annual increase can be taken only for 4-5 years as beyond that it would be unsafe to uniformly apply the same rate for increase and that too with cumulative effect. Paragraph 15 of the said judgment may be reproduced here which mentions the reasons where the gap is of several years, such standards may not be reliable rather the same may be unsafe. “15. 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 acquisitions), 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 reliedon sale transactions/acquisitions precede the subject acquisition by only a few years, that is, up to 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 of only a few years, may become an 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.” 18. In the said case, after laying down the caution, this Court awarded cumulative annual increase at the rate of 7.5% for a period of five years. 19. In the case of Ashrafi (supra), this Court amongst many issues, considered the issue of applying annual increase cumulatively for determining just compensation. It also considered the law laid down in the case of Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel (supra) and many other judgments on the said point. It applied formula of 12% annual increase cumulatively for a period of five years. In the case of Ashrafi (supra), this Court amongst many issues, considered the issue of applying annual increase cumulatively for determining just compensation. It also considered the law laid down in the case of Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel (supra) and many other judgments on the said point. It applied formula of 12% annual increase cumulatively for a period of five years. The base rate being of the year 1987 whereas the acquisition in question being of 1993. 20. We will also refer to order dated 22.08.2014 in the case of Narbadi Devi (supra) which relied upon the judgment in the case of Ashrafi (supra) and accepted the annual increase of 12% cumulatively. The High Court in the said case had although followed the dictum in the judgment of Ashrafi (supra), however, the annual increase of 12% was granted at a flat rate by the High Court and not cumulatively. This Court accordingly had modified the order of the High Court to the aforesaid extent that 12% annual increase would be cumulative. 21. Recently, in the year 2022, this Court in the case of Ramrao Shankar Tapase (supra) citing the judgment in the case of Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel (supra) and other similar matters, awarded annual increase cumulatively at the rate of 12% for a period of three years. The High Court in the said case had applied annual increase cumulatively at the rate of 10%. 22. The latest judgment is of 2023 in the case of Subhash Chander (supra). In this case, the Court held that rate of annual increase could vary from 8% to 15% per year. However, considering the facts of the said case, this Court had awarded 10% annual increase cumulatively for a period of two years only. 23. From the above, we notice that the consistent view taken by this Court for awarding annual increase to determine the just compensation varies from case to case and the period to be applied is a major factor to be considered. In the present case, the period is 11 years which is pretty large as compared to the time period considered in the cases referred to above.” 24. Taking an overall view in the matter and the consistent view of this Court, the fair and reasonable compensation in the present case would be best determined if we apply 8% annual increase with cumulative effect. Taking an overall view in the matter and the consistent view of this Court, the fair and reasonable compensation in the present case would be best determined if we apply 8% annual increase with cumulative effect. This is for the reason that the gap is huge i.e. 11 years. For shorter period of 3-5 years, it could have been 10% or 12%. But in no case 15% would be justified for a period of 11 years as awarded by the High Court in the impugned order. In the present case, given the 11 years gap, 8% would be considered just and proper.” 12. In view of the aforesaid legal position clarified by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Central Warehousing Corporation (supra), it is now trite law that where gap between the subject acquisition and the transaction that proves market value is more than five years, it is not safe to award increase in the market value of the acquired land @15%, that too, with cumulative effect. It would, thus, depend on the facts and circumstances of the case and would be further reduced depending upon the length of gap between the two situations. 13. Having applied the aforesaid principles in the facts of the case on hand, in order to determine just and fair compensation, the Court is thus required to take into consideration the relevant factors as indicated in Section 23 of the Act. The Four factors, that is, (i) situation/location of the land, (ii) nature of development in the surrounding area, (iii) availability of land for development in the area, and (iv) the demand for land in the area. Keeping the aforesaid factors in mind and, in the absence of any concrete evidence on record, in particular, availability of comparable sale deeds of the land in the area executed during the relevant period when Section 4 notification was issued, We are persuaded to follow one of the methodology adopted by the Courts viz. to take the proved market value of the nearby land in previous years as the base value and then determine market value by considering 10 % annual increase. 14. From a reading of the testimony of the respondent claimant at EXH. 13, following facts be said to have been proved:— (a) That the acquired lands are situated in village Jalat which is situated in the limits of Taluka and District Dahod. 14. From a reading of the testimony of the respondent claimant at EXH. 13, following facts be said to have been proved:— (a) That the acquired lands are situated in village Jalat which is situated in the limits of Taluka and District Dahod. (b) That the exemplar of Land reference award dated 31.03.2014, passed by the Reference Court, Dahod in LAR no. 223/2004 and 224/2004 of acquired lands of Dahod (kasba) determines the market of such acquired lands of Dahod (kasba) at the rate of Rs. 200 per sq. mrts. (c) Also, exemplar of Land reference award dated 19.04.2006 passed by the Reference Court, Dahod in adjoining village : Punsari, determines award of Rs. 200 per sq.mrts. (d) The Village Jalat is situated near the Taluka as well as the headquarters of District Dahod. It is hardly 3 to 4 Kms. away from the city of Dahod and around 6 km from headquarters of District Dahod. It is admitted that village Punsari is adjoining village Jalat. (e) Though the witness has been unable to clarify the particulars of national highway which he claims to pass through, the fact remains that Dahod Indore National Highway passes through village Jalat and it connects to headquarter Dahod. 15. The aforesaid evidence gets corroboration from the Map produced on record at EXH. 30. The award dated 19.04.2006 in respect of lands acquired from village Punsari, passed by the reference Court, Dahod in the LAR no. 226 of 2004 to 230 of 2004 is also placed on record at EXH. 31. It is, thus, evident from the reading of the aforesaid award that the land of village : Punsari is situated in the sim of Dahod, which was acquired for the purpose of a sales tax check post and is situated on Dahod Indore Highway. Again, in the said reference case, the Court has relied upon previous awards passed in Land reference case no. 89 of 1990 which was in respect of lands acquired in the outskirts of Dahod Town. 16. As against the aforesaid evidence of the claimants, except for oral evidence no cogent material has been brought on record by the respondents namely the Special Land acquisition office nor the acquiring body- railways. The respondent have though placed on record the report of District Land Pricing committee, however, the same has not been proved through his witness. 16. As against the aforesaid evidence of the claimants, except for oral evidence no cogent material has been brought on record by the respondents namely the Special Land acquisition office nor the acquiring body- railways. The respondent have though placed on record the report of District Land Pricing committee, however, the same has not been proved through his witness. The Deputy Collector who has been examined as witness is not even aware about the situation of lands acquired. 17. Upon overall appreciation of the evidence placed for consideration, the only comparable exemplar which has been brought on record is the award dated 19.04.2006 passed by the Reference Court, Dahod in LAR no. 226 of 2004 in case of acquisition of land in village : Punsari. It is an undisputed fact that section 4 notification was issued 18.05.2009 and the market value was determined as Rs. 199.50 ps. Per sq. mrts. It is true that the market value in the said case was determined again on the basis of an award dated 03.08.2002 passed by the Reference Court, Dahod in LAR no. 89 of 1990 which pertained to acquisition of lands situated in Dahod town, by applying a 10% rise annually from the date of notification in the previous year. 18. In the instant case, there is admittedly a gap of nine years and ten months and, therefore, having regard to the guidelines laid down in the aforesaid judgments and also the special factors existing in the instant case, the enhancement to the market rate of acquired land @ 8% with cumulative effect could have been applied then the actual market value which would have arrived been comes to more than what is awarded by the impugned award. We would like to reproduce the calculation to have a fair idea about market value which would have arrived at Rs. 425.36 ps. instead of Rs. 389 per sq. mrts. viz. by applying cumulative annual increase at the rate of 8% instead of simple 10% rise annually. 16.07.1999 199.50 16.7.2000 215.46 16.7.2001 232.70 16.7.2002 251.31 16.7.2003 271.42 16.7.2004 293.13 16.7.2005 316.58 16.7.2006 341.91 16.7.2007 369.26 16.7.2008 398.80 18.5.2009 425.36 10 months 19. However, since the acquiring body is in appeal and not the claimants, we resist to not to consider any prayer for enhancement of award in absence of any cross objections or cross appeals. 16.07.1999 199.50 16.7.2000 215.46 16.7.2001 232.70 16.7.2002 251.31 16.7.2003 271.42 16.7.2004 293.13 16.7.2005 316.58 16.7.2006 341.91 16.7.2007 369.26 16.7.2008 398.80 18.5.2009 425.36 10 months 19. However, since the acquiring body is in appeal and not the claimants, we resist to not to consider any prayer for enhancement of award in absence of any cross objections or cross appeals. On overall appreciation of the case, we find no good reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and award. According to us, the reference court has passed just and fair compensation which meet the ends of justice. The special factors which existed in this case as discussed earlier draws us to infer that the lands are situated in the vicinity of a developed area and have potential to develop in near future. We also take judicial notice of the fact that with the existence of the nearby National Highway connecting to Dahod City as well as proximity with the headquarter of District Dahod, are sufficient factors to arrive at conclusion that the subject lands acquired are situated in a developing area which is likely to fetch steep rise in the market value of land in the future period. 20. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merits in the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant - Railways and the appeals are therefore not entertained and are hereby dismissed. The Reference Court is directed to release and disburse the award amount as lying in the fixed deposit receipts in favour of the respective claimants within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, after due verification and through account payee cheques. Interim relief stands vacated.