JUDGMENT : (Nisha M. Thakore, J.) 1. Heard Ms. Tanushree Shrimal, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the appellants and learned advocate Mr. K.M. Sheth for the respondents-original claimants. 2. The present appeal is filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 read with Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure at the instance of the State Authorities. The appellants are aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award dated 25.07.2012 passed by learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bharuch in Land Reference Case No.205 of 2011, whereby the reference court has partly allowed the reference case, holding the original claimants entitled to an amount of Rs.248.12/- per sq. mtrs of the acquired lands as an additional compensation over and above the compensation already awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. The reference court has also held the claimants entitled to get increase at the rate of 12% interest per annum from the date of publication of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act i.e. 24.04.2008 till the date of the award passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer i.e. up to 03.06.2010 as provided under Section 23(1-A) of the Act. The claimants are also held entitled to get 30% solatium and running interest at the rate of 9% per annum for the period of one year from the date of taking over the possession of the acquired lands, and thereafter, at the rate of 15% per annum on the aggregated amount i.e. the additional awarded amount, solatium and 12% increase under Section 23(1-A) of the Act, till the entire is paid or deposited. 3. The facts of the case are briefly summarized as under: 3.1 The original claimants are affected land owners, whose lands situated at village Kaliyari, Taluka-Jambusar, District- Bharuch, were acquired for the public purpose i.e. for the construction of Kaliyari Branch Minor Canal under Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Limited. The Notification declaring such intention of acquisition of the proposed lands was published under Section 4 of the Act on 24.04.2008 followed by the Notification under Section 6 of the Act on 23.10.2008. The opportunity was given to the affected parties including the claimants. The Notification declaring such intention of acquisition of the proposed lands was published under Section 4 of the Act on 24.04.2008 followed by the Notification under Section 6 of the Act on 23.10.2008. The opportunity was given to the affected parties including the claimants. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, after considering their objections, had passed an award dated 03.06.2010 in Land Acquisition Case No.01 of 2008 in terms of Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, whereby the claimants were awarded the amount of Rs.267/- per Are for the acquired lands. 3.2 The affected parties including lands owners had approached the Special Land Acquisition Officer under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, seeking reference for additional amount of compensation as against the aforesaid award passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. The reference cases were presented before the court of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bharuch, which were registered on 06.08.2011 as Land Acquisition Reference Case Nos.205 to 212 of 2011. The learned Civil Judge, upon appreciation of the evidence brought on record, by impugned judgment and award dated 25.07.2012, was pleased to partly allow the reference, holding the claimants entitled to get additional amount of compensation of Rs.248.12/- per sq. mtrs. for the acquired lands with all statutory benefits. Hence, this appeal at the instance of the State. 4. The matter was taken up for final hearing, at the request of learned advocate Mr. K.M.Sheth appearing for the respondents-original claimants, on the ground that initially the group of appeals were preferred by the State against the same impugned judgment and award, and out of the aforesaid group of matters, except for the present appeal, rest of the appeals have been settled in the Lok Adalat, whereby the State has accepted the impugned judgment and award determining the additional compensation of the acquired lands. 5. At the outset, learned advocate Mr. K.M. Sheth appearing for the respondents-original claimants, has placed on record the comparative chart of the award passed in respect of the acquisition of the lands situated in the same village- Kaliyari, though being registered as different group of reference cases, in view of the different dates of notifications issued under sections 4 and 6 of the Act. K.M. Sheth appearing for the respondents-original claimants, has placed on record the comparative chart of the award passed in respect of the acquisition of the lands situated in the same village- Kaliyari, though being registered as different group of reference cases, in view of the different dates of notifications issued under sections 4 and 6 of the Act. The reliance was placed on the order dated 27.04.2023 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in First Appeal No.3040 of 2013, to point out that the aforesaid appeal arises out of Land Reference Case No.512 of 2010, arising out of acquisition of lands situated in the same village- Kaliyari, wherein the notification of intention of declaring requisition of the lands issued under Section 4 of the Act on 01.04.2008, which was hardly 23 days prior to date of publication of notification under Section 4 in the present case which was for the same public purpose i.e. for Narmada Project. 5.1 It was further submitted that in the aforesaid land reference cases, the Special Land Acquisition Officer had initially awarded an amount of Rs.2.67/- per sq. mtrs by passing an award under Section 11 of the Act on 22.10.2009. The original claimants have sought for additional amount of compensation of Rs.350/- per sq. mtrs. as against that the reference court had partly allowed the claim petition by determining the additional amount of compensation of Rs.246.44/- per sq. mtrs. followed with statutory benefits. By making the aforesaid submissions, learned advocate had submitted that the Co- ordinate Bench in the aforesaid appeal being First Appeal No.3040 of 2013, has upheld the aforesaid judgment and award passed by the reference court fixing the amount of additional compensation of Rs.246.44/-per sq. mtrs. in case of acquisition of lands in the same village. 5.2 Additionally, the learned advocate has referred to and relied upon the order dated 10.03.2014 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in First Appeal No.360 of 2014, to contend that the judgment and award relied upon by the learned reference court in the original reference proceedings of adjoining village-Chhidra wherein Land Reference Case No.733 of 2010 (main), the copy of which was produced at Exh.31, was challenged by the State in the aforesaid appeal. This Court upon appreciating the evidence brought on record, had dismissed the appeal preferred by the State, thereby upholding the aforesaid amount of additional compensation as awarded by the reference court in Land Reference Case No.733 of 2010 and allied matters. 5.3 The attention of this Court was invited to the reasons assigned by the learned reference court, more particularly, the map of Jambusar Taluka produced at Exh.26, whereby the reference court has arrived at a conclusion that the boundaries of the village- Kaliyari is situated just near to village- Chhidra. By making the aforesaid submissions, learned advocate has submitted that on comparison of the additional amount of compensation as against the date of publication of notification issued under Section 4 of the Act and the situation of the lands, the present appeal is required to be dismissed. 6. Learned AGP Ms. Tanushree Shrimal has appeared for the appellants-State Authorities, and has objected to the aforesaid submissions made by learned advocate for the respondents-original claimants. At the outset, learned AGP has invited attention of this Court to the reasons assigned by the Co-ordinate Bench, while not entertaining the appeal preferred by the State as observed in its order dated 27.04.2023 passed in First Appeal No.3040 of 2013. She has submitted that, it was only on account of the fact that the appeals preferred by the State, have been settled in terms of the Circular, by considering it as a pity claim, the same cannot be considered as a decision on merits, and therefore, is not binding to this Court. 6.1 Learned AGP Ms. Shrimal has also fairly conceded the fact that in the present group of land reference cases, though initially, the State had preferred the appeals; however, noticing the pity claims involved, the State had agreed for settlement in terms of the Circular issued and the matters were disposed of before the Lok Adalat. She has, therefore, submitted that the present appeal is required to be decided on merits. 7. Responding to the aforesaid submissions of learned AGP for the appellants, learned advocate Mr. Sheth for the respondents-original claimants has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shivappa Etc. Etc. She has, therefore, submitted that the present appeal is required to be decided on merits. 7. Responding to the aforesaid submissions of learned AGP for the appellants, learned advocate Mr. Sheth for the respondents-original claimants has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shivappa Etc. Etc. vs. The Chief Engineer and others delivered in Civil Appeal Nos.2694-2700 of 2023 on 11.04.2023, the Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with similar contention had deprecated the aforesaid approach of the State and its instrumentalities, and has observed that if the State has accepted the award of the reference court in some of the claimants, it cannot be permitted to adopt a different treatment to the other claimants; such an attitude smacks of patent discrimination. By holding so, the Court had allowed the appeals preferred by the original claimants thereby setting aside the order of the High Court and restored the order of the reference court awarding additional compensation. By making the aforesaid submissions, learned advocate Mr. Sheth appearing for the respondents-original claimants has urged this Court to dismiss the present appeal preferred by the State Authorities. 8. Considering the submissions made by learned advocates for the respective parties and having perused the impugned judgment and award passed by the reference court, it is an undisputed fact that the judgment and award passed in the case of acquired lands of adjoining village-Chhidra bearing Land Reference Case No.733 of 2010 (main) produced at Exh.31, awarding additional amount of compensation at the rate of Rs.198.49/- has attained finality. 9. This Court taking note of the submissions made by learned AGP for the appellants, had inquired from her as to whether any challenge was made by the State as against the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in First Appeal No.3040 of 2013, to which, she has fairly pointed out that said order has not been carried in appeal before the higher forum. Even otherwise, the learned AGP appearing for the appellants has failed to point out any perversity or any error being committed by the reference court in the impugned judgment and award. 10. Even otherwise, the learned AGP appearing for the appellants has failed to point out any perversity or any error being committed by the reference court in the impugned judgment and award. 10. The close reading of the reasons assigned by the learned Judge, it transpires that the learned Judge has taken into consideration not only the date of the notification issued under Section 4 of the Act, but has also taken into consideration the situation of the lands by appreciating the documents produced in the form of map of village Jambusar Taluka at Exh.26. Learned AGP has made an attempt to refer the judgment of the adjoining village of Bakarpur, which is produced at Exh.34 before the reference court; however, the learned AGP has failed to point out the factors to consider it as the best exemplar for the purpose of determination of the additional compensation of the acquired lands of village-Kaliyari. 11. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is not entertained and is hereby dismissed. In view of dismissal of the present appeal, the amount which is lying in the cumulative fixed deposit receipts, pursuant to the order passed by this Court in civil application for stay, the same amount is permitted to be released and disbursed in favour of the original claimants subject to proper verification. The interest which may have accrued on such fixed deposit, is also required to be released in favour of the original claimants. Let the aforesaid exercise be undertaken within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. 12. With these observations and directions, present First Appeal stands disposed of as dismissed.