JUDGMENT : NISHA M. THAKORE, J. 1. The present appeal is filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (henceforth “the Act”) read with Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 at the instance of the original claimants seeking enhancement of the award amount as against the judgment and award dated 12.10.2013 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Banaskantha, Palanpur in Land Reference Case No. 372 of 2000, which came to be disposed of along with group of land reference cases being L.A.R. Nos. 370 of 2000 to 383 of 2000. 1.1 By the said impugned judgment and award, the reference court has partly allowed the applications preferred by the original claimants-land owners thereby directing the opponents to pay the additional compensation at the rate of Rs. 21.86/- per sq. mtrs. for the acquired lands. The appropriate amount of compensation as fixed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer at the time of acquisition of their lands being paid was directed to be deducted from the aforesaid amount i.e. Rs. 21.86/- Rs. 2.05/ = Rs. 19.81/-. The reference court has further directed payment of additional compensation at the rate of 12% in light of Section 23(1A) of the Act and the amount of solatium at the rate of 30% on the additional amount of compensation as provided under Section 23(2) of the Act. 1.2 Apart from the aforesaid amount of compensation, the Reference Court has also awarded interest on the additional compensation at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of taking permanent possession or from the date of issuing Notification under Section 4 of the Act, whichever is earlier for the first year, and thereafter, at the rate of 15% per annum till realization of the aggregate amount as provided under Section 28 of the Act. 2. The relevant dates, which may be necessary for adjudication of the issue involved, are summarized as under: 2.1 The present appellants are the owner of the land situated in the sim of village-Manpura, Taluka-Deodar, District-Banaskantha, which was acquired by the respondent authorities for construction of canal under Narmada Canal Project. The Notification in this regard under Section 4 of the Act was published on 24.06.1997 and Section 6 Notification was published on 29.10.1997. The Notification in this regard under Section 4 of the Act was published on 24.06.1997 and Section 6 Notification was published on 29.10.1997. The Special Land Acquisition Officer appointed under the Act, after following due process of law and after giving sufficient opportunities to the land owners, had declared the award under Section 11 of the Act on 28.12.1999. The market value of the acquired lands was determined at the rate of Rs. 2.05/- per sq. mtrs. 2.2 The claimants-land owners being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid amount of compensation moved reference before the appropriate authority, which came to be submitted before the court of learned 3rd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Banaskantha at Palanpur and were registered as Land Reference Case Nos. 370 of 2000 to 383 of 2000. The L.A.R. No. 370 of 2000 was treated as the main lead case. The aforesaid reference cases were consolidated and decided by common judgment dated 12.10.2013, including the present case under challenge being L.A.R. No. 372 of 2000, thereby fixing the additional amount of compensation of the land acquired at the rate of Rs. 21.86/- sq. mtrs. with consequential statutory benefits provided under the Act. 2.3 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the amount of compensation being awarded on lower side, the original claimant-land owner has approached this Court under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act read with Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, essentially praying for enhancement of the amount of compensation. 3. Before considering the case of the present appellants-original claimants, it is required to be noticed that present appeal has been filed after the delay of almost 2834 days. This Court vide order dated 07.03.2024 was pleased to condone the delay, by considering the grounds raised by the applicants and in light of the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Anr. Vs. Katji and Ors. AIR 1987 SC 1353 , in the case of Dhiraj Singh (Dead) through Legal Heirs vs. State of Haryana and Ors. 2014 (14) SCC 127 and in the case of K. Subbarayadu and others Vs. The Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition), 2017 (12) SCC 840 , thereby clarifying that the applicants shall waive the claim of interest for the period of delay caused in preferring the First Appeal on the enhanced amount of award, if any. 2014 (14) SCC 127 and in the case of K. Subbarayadu and others Vs. The Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition), 2017 (12) SCC 840 , thereby clarifying that the applicants shall waive the claim of interest for the period of delay caused in preferring the First Appeal on the enhanced amount of award, if any. Accordingly, the appeal came to be admitted by this Court vide order dated 01.07.2024 and was notified for final hearing. 4. Heard Mr. Viral J. Dave, learned advocate on record for the appellants-original claimants, Mr. M.B. Gohil, learned advocate on record for the respondent no. 2 and learned AGP Mr. Manohar Rahevar for the respondent no. 1-State Authorities. 5. Mr. Viral J. Dave, learned advocate on record for the appellants-original claimants, has placed heavy reliance upon the common oral order dated 14.10.2022 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in group of appeals being First Appeal No. 5246 of 2019 and allied matters, to point out that the order impugned in the present appeal was subject matter of challenge in the aforesaid group of appeals arising out of the cognate land reference cases, therein the claimants who were the residents of village-Manpura had placed reliance upon the judgment and award dated 24.04.2019 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Civil Judge, Taluka-Deodar, District- Palanpur in L.A.R. No. 13 of 2018 in case of same village, which was earlier known as Manpura/Dhunsol village. By referring to the aforesaid award, wherein the reference court had awarded the amount of additional compensation at the rate of Rs. 81.05/- and Section 4 Notification was published on 13.01.1997 and the lands being acquired for the same project, the enhancement was sought for as against the award amount of Rs.19.81/- awarded as additional compensation by the reference court. The co-ordinate bench, upon appreciation of the aforesaid submissions, observed as under: “6. Under the circumstances, this Court cannot deny the benefit, which is extended to the claimants of Dhunsol village. It is pertinent to note that the reference court, while awarding the additional compensation of Rs. 81.05/- to the claimants of Dhunsol village has placed reliance on the land acquired of Kotarvada village, for which Section 4 notification issued on 30.04.1997. This Court has perused the map along with additional evidence. It is pertinent to note that the reference court, while awarding the additional compensation of Rs. 81.05/- to the claimants of Dhunsol village has placed reliance on the land acquired of Kotarvada village, for which Section 4 notification issued on 30.04.1997. This Court has perused the map along with additional evidence. On perusal of the same, it reveals that the boundaries of Kotarvada, Dhunsol and Manpura villages are common and all the three villages are adjoining. For the land acquired of Kotarvada village, the additional compensation of Rs. 81.05/- has been awarded by the reference court by the judgment and award dated 22.03.2017 in LAR Nos. 157, 159 to 162 of 2000 and allied matters, and the same is accepted by the State Government. Thus, the present appellants- claimants, who belong to Manpura village cannot be discriminated from awarding the additional compensation to either of which has been awarded to the claimants of Dhunsol village and Kotarvada village. Accordingly, the impugned judgment and award is modified to the below extent: “The claimants would be entitled to an additional compensation of Rs. 61.24/- per sq. mtr. which has been awarded by the court below. The rest of the directions remain unaltered. The acquiring body shall deposit the remaining amount within a period of three months. After such deposit, the reference court shall disburse the same to claimants after proper verification.” 7. After the order was dictated, learned AGP Ms. Patel has pointed out the order dated 12.10.2018 passed by the Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 26817 of 2018. The same is reproduced as under: “Issue notice. Untill further orders, there will be stay of operation of the impugned orders passed by the High Court, subject to petitioners depositing with Reference Court the interest from the date of award, within three weeks from today. On such deposit, it will be open to the claimants to withdraw the same, on proper verification, without prejudice to their contentions in these cases. We make it clear that this order will apply in the case of all pending matters in the High Court and, therefore, those claimants need not travel to this Court. Tag with SLP (C) No. 27049/2018.” 8. We make it clear that this order will apply in the case of all pending matters in the High Court and, therefore, those claimants need not travel to this Court. Tag with SLP (C) No. 27049/2018.” 8. The Apex Court in the order dated 12.10.2018 has ordered that for all the matters, which are pending before this Court, the acquiring body is directed to deposit the interest from the date of award and as on such deposit, it would be open for the claimants to withdraw the same on proper verification without prejudice to their contentions in the case pending before the Apex Court. 9. Thus, on such deposit of the entire amount, as ordered by this Court, the claimants would be entitled to interest from the date of award. It is further clarified that the same will be subject to further orders, which will be passed by the Supreme Court in the aforementioned cases. 10. It is further clarified that whatever deficit court fees the same shall be deposited by the present appellants before the Registry of this Court as mentioned by the learned advocate Mr. Dave. 11. All the first appeals are allowed. The rest of the directions issued by the reference court shall remain unaltered.” 5.1 By making the aforesaid submissions, learned advocate for the appellants-original claimants, has therefore, prayed to pass appropriate orders, in light of the aforesaid judgment of the Coordinate Bench. 6. Mr. M.B. Gohil, learned advocate on record for the respondent-acquiring body has fairy conceded to the aforesaid position, and has invited attention of this Court to the order dated 15.06.2023 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench in First Appeal No. 1841 of 2023, wherein the learned Judge had taken into consideration the aforesaid decision relied upon by the learned advocate for the appellant and has allowed the appeal preferred by the original claimant of the same village Manpura. It is further submitted that the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench in the aforesaid First Appeal was subject matter of challenge at the instance of the State before the Hon’ble Supreme Court by way of Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 43983 of 2024, which was preferred along with delay condonation application being I.A. No. 248250/2024. It is further submitted that the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench in the aforesaid First Appeal was subject matter of challenge at the instance of the State before the Hon’ble Supreme Court by way of Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 43983 of 2024, which was preferred along with delay condonation application being I.A. No. 248250/2024. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, upon hearing the learned counsel for the State, vide order dated 08.11.2024, refused to condone the delay, thereby dismissing the Special Leave Petition on the ground of delay. Learned advocate Mr. M.B. Gohil appearing for the respondent-acquiring body has, therefore, urged to pass appropriate order. 7. Learned AGP Mr. Manohar Rahevar for the respondent no. 1-State authorities was unable to contradict the aforesaid judgments in the facts of the case. 8. Considering the submissions made by learned advocates for the respective parties and having perused the impugned order in light of the respective orders passed by the Co-ordinate Bench, indisputably the order impugned in the present appeal was a subject matter of challenge; though arising out of cognate group of land reference cases, which have been examined and modified by awarding additional amount of compensation at the rate of Rs. 81.05/- by placing reliance upon the situation of the acquired lands of village- Manpura. As against the acquired lands of village-Dhunsol and of Kotarvada village, which are otherwise adjoining villages, it is an admitted fact that the aforesaid lands are acquired for the same project i.e. Narmada Canal Project and the date of issuance of Notification under Section 4 of the Act was 13.01.1997, which is prior to the date of Notification under Section 4 of the Act issued in the present case i.e. 24.06.1997. 9. On further consideration, it also transpires that the market value of the lands acquired in the earlier reference cases being L.A.R. Nos. 466 to 490 of 2000 was fixed at the rate of Rs. 2.05/- per sq. mtrs. by an award dated 13.03.2000 passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer under Section 11 of the Act, which is at the same rate as determined by the Special Land Acquisition Officer in the present case. The date of award of reference court is admittedly the same impugned judgment dated 12.10.2013. 10. In light of the aforesaid circumstances, no discrimination can be meted with the present stand alone case. Consequently, the present First Appeal succeeds. The date of award of reference court is admittedly the same impugned judgment dated 12.10.2013. 10. In light of the aforesaid circumstances, no discrimination can be meted with the present stand alone case. Consequently, the present First Appeal succeeds. The appellants-original claimants are held entitled to the additional amount of compensation at the rate of Rs. 81.05/- per sq. mtrs. The impugned judgment and award passed by learned 3rd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Banaskantha, Palanpur in Land Reference Case No. 372 of 2000 hereby stands modified to the aforesaid extent. The original claimants are also held entitled to the consequential statutory benefits on such additional amount of compensation. 11. It is further clarified that at the stage of condonation of delay this Court, while condoning the delay vide order dated 07.03.2024 passed in Civil Application (For Condonation of Delay) No. 395 of 2024 in captioned appeal, has clarified that the applicants-original claimants shall not be entitled to claim interest for the period of delay caused in preferring the appeal, in case, if the amount of award is enhanced. In view of the aforesaid order passed by this Court in the present matter, it is once again clarified that the original claimants shall not be entitled to the interest for the aforesaid period of delay on such enhanced amount of compensation. 12. In light of the aforesaid, the respondent-State Authorities are directed to deposit the enhanced amount of compensation preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order. The reference court is further directed to disburse the entire amount of compensation in favour of the original claimants preferably within a period of one week, thereafter, subject to proper verification, by account payee cheque. Needless to clarify that in the event, the issue of deficit court fees arises, it shall be open for the Registry to evaluate the same before disbursing the amount of compensation. 13. With these observations and directions, present First Appeal stands disposed of, in aforesaid terms.