JUDGMENT : NISHA M. THAKORE, J. [1.] By this appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 read with Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the appellants- State Authorities/original opponents have challenged judgment and award dated 31.12.2009 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge at Junagadh in Land Reference Case No.1362 of 1999. [1.1] By the said impugned judgment and award, the opponents therein were directed to pay additional amount of compensation at the rate of Rs.2500/- (Rs.3,000/- market value – Rs.500/- already awarded = Rs.2500/-) per Are for the irrigated land to the applicant of the reference petition. The claimant was also held entitled to get increase upon the market price at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of notification published under Section 4 of the Act till the date of award with interest as per Section 23(1)(A) of the Act and 30% solatium upon the market price with interest as per Section 23(2) of the Act. The original claimant was also entitled to get 9% interest upon the compensation from the date of taking over possession for one year and thereafter, at the rate of 15% interest per annum from the subsequent year till realization. The trial court has further directed that interest is awarded on the aggregate amount of compensation by the opponents and opponents to bear their own costs. [2.] Today, when the matter was taken up for hearing, learned AGP Ms. Tanushree Shrimal appearing for the appellants, under instructions, has submitted that the appeal was preferred by the original claimants seeking enhancement against the award passed by the reference court, which is under challenge in the present appeal preferred by the State Authorities. The aforesaid appeal being First Appeal No.2221 of 2010 was partly allowed by this Court vide oral judgment dated 12.02.2014, whereby the impugned judgment and award dated 31.12.2009 in Land Reference Case No.1362 of 1999 passed by learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Juanagadh was modified and the original claimant was held entitled to additional compensation at the rate of Rs.10/- sq. mtrs. (Rs.40/- Rs.30/-). She has further submitted that the aforesaid order has attained finality as no further challenge is made by the appellants-State Authorities. She has, therefore, urged this Court to pass appropriate order. [3.] Learned advocate Mr. mtrs. (Rs.40/- Rs.30/-). She has further submitted that the aforesaid order has attained finality as no further challenge is made by the appellants-State Authorities. She has, therefore, urged this Court to pass appropriate order. [3.] Learned advocate Mr. Nitin Amin has appeared for the respondent, and has fairly accepted that the present appeal challenges the very same impugned judgment and award and the issue involved has already been decided by this Court in First Appeal No.2221 of 2010 on 12.02.2014, therefore, no interference is required to be called for. He has further submitted that the aforesaid order has not been taken in appeal before higher forum. He has, therefore, urged to dismiss the present appeal as the same is not maintainable. [4.] I have heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and perused the aforesaid judgment. It would be appropriate to reproduce the relevant observations of the Co-ordinate Bench while deciding the issue involved, which read as under: “1. By this appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 read with Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the appellant-original claimant has challenged judgment and award dated 31.12.2009 passed in Land Reference Case No.1362 of 1999 by learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Junagadh. 2. The land belonging to the appellant-original claimant, situated at Village Badalpur, Taluka and District Junagadh, was acquired by the State Government for the public purpose of “Ozat-2 Irrigation Project”. Notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 13.10.1993 followed by declaration under Section 6 of the Act dated 07.05.1994. Proceedings so initiated, culminated into the award under Section 11(1) of the Act, which was made and declared by the Special Land Acquisition Officer on 16.02.1995. The Special Land Acquisition Officer awarded Rs.5/- per Sq.Mtr., as compensation for the irrigated land. 3. Being dissatisfied with the amount of compensation so awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, the appellant-original claimant raised a dispute as provided under Section 18 of the Act, which came to be referred to the Reference Court and the same was registered as Land Acquisition Reference Case No.1362 of 1999. The appellant raised demand of Rs.40-70 per Sq.Mtr. as compensation. The appellant raised demand of Rs.40-70 per Sq.Mtr. as compensation. After considering the evidence adduced before it and on appreciation of the same, learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Junagadh, vide order dated 31.12.2009 determined the market value under the acquisition pertaining to the appellant-original claimant at the rate of Rs.30/- per Sq.Mtr., and awarded Rs.25/- per Sq.Mtr., as additional compensation along with other statutory benefits under Sections 23(1-A), 23(2) and 28 of the Act. 4. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award of the Reference Court, the appellant-original claimant has preferred this appeal. 5. Heard Mr.Vimal Patel, learned Counsel for the appellant-original claimant and Mr.Alkesh Shah, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Junagadh. Have perused the record and proceedings of the Reference Court. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant-original claimant has taken this Court through the impugned judgment and award. It was mainly contended that while determining the market value of the land at the rate of Rs.30/- per Sq.Mtr., the Reference Court has relied upon the previous award at Exh:22 passed by the Reference Court in Land Acquisition Reference Case No.1564 of 1999. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that previous award at Exh:22 relates to the land, which was acquired for the same irrigation project in the same village i.e. Badalpur. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant further invited attention of this Court that the previous award at Exh:22, was subject matter of First Appeal No.5307 of 2001 and allied matters filed by the State Government, which came to be dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 02.08.2011, wherein the Division Bench of this Court has confirmed the previous award, whereby the land acquired for the same purpose, situated at Village Badalpur, wherein Section 4 Notification which was published on 24.05.1993 is confirmed and thereby, this Court has on re-appreciation of the evidence, has upheld the judgment passed by the Reference Court, wherein the market value of the land under Acquisition was determined at the rate of Rs.40/- per Sq.Mtr. Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that considering the fact that the date of Section 4 Notification in the instance case is 13.04.1993, the appellant is entitled to the compensation at the rate of Rs.40/- per Sq.Mtr. It was therefore, submitted that the appeal deserves to be allowed. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that considering the fact that the date of Section 4 Notification in the instance case is 13.04.1993, the appellant is entitled to the compensation at the rate of Rs.40/- per Sq.Mtr. It was therefore, submitted that the appeal deserves to be allowed. 8. Per contra, Mr.Alkesh Shah, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the Land Acquisition Officer has supported the impugned judgment and award and has contended that the Reference Court after considering the whole set of evidence on record and after examining the evidence as far as the fertility of the land in question is concerned and potentiality of the development of the land has correctly determined the market value at the rate of Rs.30/- per Sq.Mtr. Hence, it was submitted that no interference is called for by this Court and the appeal deserves to be dismissed. No other and further submissions are made by learned counsel for the respective parties. 9. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record and proceedings, it transpires that while passing the award under Section 11(1) of the Act, the Land Acquisition Officer has considered the sale instances of the lands of last 5 years on basis of the report submitted by TalatiCum-Mantri, Badalpur village dated 17.03.1990. It further appears that while determining the market value of the land (under Acquisition) is Rs.5/- per Sq.Mtr., the Land Acquisition Officer has relied upon the report of the District Land Valuation Committee. It further appears that the Land Acquisition Officer has also taken into consideration the award passed under the Act for similar public purpose of nearby village Sarsai and considering the land (under acquisition) as Bagayat has determined the market value of Rs.500/- per Are i.e.. Rs.5/- per Sq.Mtr. 10. It further appears that in the reference application, the original claimant has raised several issues and has demanded the market value of the lands (under acquisition) should be any figure between Rs.40,000/- to Rs.70,000/- per Are i.e. Rs.40/- to 70/- per Sq.Mtr., however, learned counsel for the appellant-original claimant has stated that the appeal is restricted only for the claim of market value of the land at the rate of Rs.40/- per Sq.Mtr. 11. 11. On perusal of the evidence, which was laid by way of oral deposition of one Shri Manjibhai Kanabhai at Exh:21, it bornes out that the said witness has also relied upon the previous award dated 27.04.2001 passed by the Reference Court in Land Acquisition Reference Case No.1569 of 1999 and allied matters for the lands which were acquired, situated at Village Badalpur itself for the same purpose. 12. It further transpires that the witness has also deposed in respect to the yield that was derived from the land (under acquisition). It further transpires that the opponent has examined one Vijaykumar Kariya, working as Deputy Mamlatdar at Exh:40. It transpires from the deposition of the witness of the respondent-State that previous award at Exh:22, which was relied upon by the appellant-original claimant, was subject matter of appeal being First Appeal No.5307 of 2001 to 5309 of 2001. 13. On perusal of the previous award, which is relied upon at Exh:22, it transpires that the lands, situated at village Badalpur were acquired for the very public purpose by Notification under Section 4 published on 24.05.1993, wherein after considering the evidence on record, the Reference Court has determined the market value of the lands (under acquisition) in the said case at the rate of Rs.40/- per Sq.Mtr. 14. It may be noted that very First Appeal No.5307 of 2001 to 5309 of 2001, which came to be dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 02.08.2011, whereby it is observed thus:- 6. We have gone through the evidence of the witnesses, which has come on record. It appears that on behalf of the claimants the concerned agriculturists were examined and as per the evidence on record, the cultivation and average yield per hector has come on record the market rates prevailing of the crop concerned has also come on record. The evidence in the deposition of the witness concern is supported by the extract of Village Form No.7/12 for the purposes of cultivation of the lands for at least two crops. Further, it has also come on record that irrigation facilities were available for all the lands under acquisition. Not only that but even the assessment made for paying compensation of the standing crop in the award of the Land Acquisition Officer is at Rs.36,377/Hector for the crop of Aranda and is at Rs.37,175/Hector for the crop of Tuver. Further, it has also come on record that irrigation facilities were available for all the lands under acquisition. Not only that but even the assessment made for paying compensation of the standing crop in the award of the Land Acquisition Officer is at Rs.36,377/Hector for the crop of Aranda and is at Rs.37,175/Hector for the crop of Tuver. The aforesaid compensation came to be assessed by the Executive Engineer and accepted by the Land Acquisition Officer and such amount has been paid to the original claimants as per the award. As such when the assessment of the crop is made by the Land Acquisition Officer in the award, the appellants cannot take a contrary stand. Further, even if it is considered that there was some exaggeration, for the sake of consideration, then also it may leave room for reduction of 10-20% of the amount, but the important aspect is that it has come on record without there being any contradiction in the crossexamination that all the agriculturists used to cultivate two crops over the lands under acquisition. Under the circumstances if after deduction of the amount of compensation to 10-20% is considered then also, similar or even slight lesser amount is considered for the yield of the second crop of the same year, it would be roughly around Rs.6,500/Are to Rs.6,600/Are i.e. Rs.65,000/Hector to Rs.66,000/Hector, whereas the Reference Court has considered the yield at Rs.6,970/Are i.e. Rs.69,700/Hector. Had it been a case where the Reference Court had awarded compensation absolutely at par after applying the yield method by capitalizing the amount at ten times, it might stand on different footing but it appears that in the present case the compensation awarded is Rs.4,000/Are and consequently it is roughly about 57% then the capitalized value as per the yield method. Under the circumstances, it appears to us that it is not possible to accept the contention of the learned Assistant Government Pleader that the compensation awarded is not on the basis of fair market value. The evidence is also supported by the record of Village Form No.7 and 12 showing that there was common well and irrigation facilities were available for all the lands. Under the circumstances, if the Reference Court has awarded the compensation treating all the lands as irrigated lands, it cannot be said to be an error on the part of the Reference Court. 7. Under the circumstances, if the Reference Court has awarded the compensation treating all the lands as irrigated lands, it cannot be said to be an error on the part of the Reference Court. 7. Hence, upon re-appreciation of the evidence, we find that the compensation awarded by the Reference Court at Rs.4,000/ Are i.e. Rs.40/sq.mtr. could not be said to be erroneous approach on the part of the Reference Court. 8. Other benefits as awarded by the Reference Court are statutory benefits of increase in the price under Sections 23(1A), 23(2) and interest under Section 28 of the Act.” 15. On re-appreciation of the evidence on record, it is an admitted fact that the lands (under acquisition) in the present case also is situated at Village Badalpur. It also transpires that similar set of evidence is led by the appellant-original claimant. The lands are situated in the same village. The lands are acquired for the same public purpose i.e. “Ozat-2 Irrigation Project”. Its potentiality, fertility, nature of the land is similar to that of the lands, which were acquired in case of First Appeal No.5307 to 5309 of 2001 and more particularly and also considering the fact that in the said case, Section 4 Notification was published on 24.05.1993, whereas in the instant case, Section 4 Notification was published on 17.10.1993, a similar view needs to be taken in this appeal also. 16. The Reference Court has therefore, erred in coming to the conclusion that the previous award at Exh:22 cannot be made as base considering the fact that the appeals were pending before this Court. It further transpires that the lands, which were acquired under earlier acquisition, which was subject matter of previous award at Exh:22 and the lands under acquisition in this case are also adjacent to each other. 17. As discussed hereinabove, even in the award passed under Section 11(1) of the Act, the Land Acquisition Officer has observed that the lands (under Acquisition) are Bagayat lands and considering the description of the lands acquired under this acquisition, the Reference Court has erred in coming to the conclusion that the appellant is entitled only Rs.30/- per Sq.Mtr. as compensation. 18. Following the judgment of the Division Bench as mentioned above and on re-appreciation of the evidence, the market value of the lands (under Acquisition) in this case also, is determined at Rs.40/- per Sq.Mtr. as compensation. 18. Following the judgment of the Division Bench as mentioned above and on re-appreciation of the evidence, the market value of the lands (under Acquisition) in this case also, is determined at Rs.40/- per Sq.Mtr. The appellant would be entitled to additional compensation at the rate of Rs.10/- (Rs.40 minus Rs.30/-) per Sq.Mtr. i.e. Rs.40/- per Sq.Mtr. in total. 19. Accordingly, the present appeal is partly allowed. The judgment and award dated 31.12.2009 passed in Land Acquisition Reference Case No.1362 of 1999 by learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Junagadh stands modified to the aforesaid extent. The appellant-original claimant would be entitled to proportionate increase in statutory benefits under Sections 23(1-A), 23(2) and 28 of the Act. Decree stands modified accordingly. The respondents shall deposit additional amount as awarded by this Court within a period of four months from the date of receipt of this order. Parties to bear their own costs. [5.] Considering the fact that the impugned judgment and award challenged in the present appeal has already been appreciated by this court and has been modified to the extent enhancing the amount of compensation in favour of the respondents-original claimants and the same having attained finality, no further interference is required to be considered in the present appeal preferred at the instance of the State Authorities. [6.] Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, the present appeal stands dismissed in light of the oral judgment dated 12.02.2014 passed by this court in First Appeal No.2221 of 2010. Record and proceedings, if any called for, be sent back to the concerned court forthwith.