JUDGMENT : Nisha M. Thakore, J. 1. Since both these appeals challenge the common judgment and award, the same are heard and decided by this common judgment 2. The present appeal is preferred at the instance of the State being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the common judgment and award dated 30.04.2008 passed by learned Principal District Judge, Mahesana in Land Acquisition References Nos.195 of 2005 to 213 of 2005, under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (hereinafter to be referred as, “the Act”). By the said impugned judgment and award, the reference court has partly allowed the reference cases directing the opponents-State Authorities to pay additional compensation to the claimants at the rate of Rs.317/- per sq. mtrs. in respect of the acquired lands, over and above amount of compensation determined by the Special Land Acquisition Officer under Section 11 of the Act. The opponents are further directed to pay additional amount of compensation at the rate of 12% on such additional amount of compensation awarded to the claimants in terms of Section 23(1-A) of the Act. The opponent-State is also directed to pay the amount of solatium at the rate of 30% on the additional amount of compensation under Section 23(2) of the Act. The directions are also issued to pay interest on the additional compensation at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of taking the possession or from the date of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act, whichever is earlier initially for the first year, and thereafter, at the rate of 15% per annum till the realization of the amount of compensation, according to the provisions of Section 28 of the Act. 3. Heard Mr. Manohar Rahevar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the appellants-State Authorities and Mr. A.V. Prajapati appearing for the respondents-original claimants in the respective appeals. 4. At the outset, learned advocates have jointly submitted that the present appeals are squarely covered by the oral common judgment dated 22.06.2011 passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in bunch of appeals preferred by the State against the very same common judgment and award arising out of the cognate land reference cases. 5. 4. At the outset, learned advocates have jointly submitted that the present appeals are squarely covered by the oral common judgment dated 22.06.2011 passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in bunch of appeals preferred by the State against the very same common judgment and award arising out of the cognate land reference cases. 5. Learned advocate for the respondents- original claimants has referred to the order dated 08.07.2011 passed in First Appeal No.3753 of 2007 and allied matters, and has submitted that inadvertently the group of appeals being First Appeal Nos.1024 of 2010 to 1040 of 2010 were not reflected in the aforesaid oral common judgment dated 22.06.2011 passed in First Appeal No.3753 of 2007 and allied matters, and therefore, the Hon’ble Division Bench vide order dated 08.07.2011 had allowed the note for speaking to minutes thereby including the First Appeal Nos.1024 of 2010 to 1040 of 2010 to be covered by the said oral common judgment dated 22.06.2011. 6. Learned advocates have further invited my attention to the relevant observations, more particularly, as recorded in para 3 which refers to the facts of the aforesaid group of appeal being First Appeal Nos.1024 of 2010 to 1040 of 2010 filed by the State challenging the very impugned common judgment and award of the reference court passed in the cognate land reference cases. By making the aforesaid submissions, learned advocates for the respective parties have jointly urged to pass appropriate order in view of the fact that the said oral common judgment dated 22.06.2011 passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court has attained finality in absence of any challenge being made by the original claimants before the higher forum. 7. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and having perused the impugned judgment and award, admittedly the challenge in the First Appeal Nos.1024 of 2010 to 1040 of 2010 at the instance of State arising out of the same common impugned judgment and award of the reference court, has been examined by the Hon’ble Division Bench, whereby the appeals of the State have been partly allowed inasmuch as the additional amount of compensation as determined by the reference court at the rate of Rs.317/- per sq. mtrs of the acquired lands of village-Maktupur, has been reduced to Rs.278/- per sq. mtrs. after excluding the amount of compensation of Rs.15/- per sq. mtrs. mtrs of the acquired lands of village-Maktupur, has been reduced to Rs.278/- per sq. mtrs. after excluding the amount of compensation of Rs.15/- per sq. mtrs. as awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer at the stage of award under Section 11 of the Act. It would be appropriate to reproduce the reasons assigned by the Hon’ble Division Bench while partly allowing the appeals preferred by the State against the very same common judgment and award of the reference court as impugned in the present appeals. The same are as under: “7. The perusal of all the judgments of the Reference Court shows that there is no consistency in the assessment of the market price of the land in asmuchas in the group of First Appeal Nos. 3753/2007 to 3778/2007 the Reference Court has awarded the compensation at Rs.451.50 ps., per sq.mtr., as additional compensation for the land located at the very village wherein also the notification under section 4 of the Act was published on the very day i.e. 2/8/2002. It is true that in the said group the references have been decided by the 3rd Addl. Sr. Civil Judge, whereas in the remaining group, the decision has been taken by the Ld. Principal District Judge, but the fact would remain that for the acquisition of the land at the very village wherein the date of the relevant notification is more or less of the same period, there is substantial difference in the assessment of the market price and also consequently the additional compensation. The pertinent aspect is that in both the groups, the reliance has been placed upon the assessment of the market value of the land situated at Unjha city and the award passed by the Reference Court in respect thereto, whereby the compensation was fixed at Rs.231/- per sq.mtr. But the distinguishing feature is that in the award passed by the Ld. Principal District Judge, he has relied upon the earlier award which was considered and by taking the base at Rs.105/- per sq.mtr., as the notification under section 4 was published on 11/6/1981, he has considered the appreciation for subsequent 21 years at 10% per annum and has arrived at the market value at Rs.327.50 ps., per sq.mtr. Whereas in the awards passed by the Ld. Sr. Whereas in the awards passed by the Ld. Sr. Civil Judge, he has considered the base of the price fixed at the time of acquisition of Rs.231/- per sq.mtr., as on 15/3/1992 for Unjha city and thereafter, has considered the appreciation at 10% per annum and thereafter has assessed the market price. Since there is a basic difference in taking the principal value, the difference has resulted in the actual assessment and the assessment of the market price. In our view, such an approach cannot be countenanced for the simple reason that the yardstick and the criteria of compensation more particularly for the land situated at the same area or the nearby locality of the very village should have been common. 8. We may record that in the case of acquisition of the land at village Brahmanvada, the boundary of which is touching to Unjha city, in First Appeal No. 2794/2009 and allied matters, this Court observed thus at paragraphs 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 : “6. The pertinent aspect in the present matter is that the Reference Court in both the impugned judgement and award has mainly relied upon another decision of the Reference Court in the Land Reference Case Nos.214/05 to 239/05 for the acquisition of the land at village Maktapur, whereby the additional compensation was awarded at Rs.451.50 per square metre plus statutory benefit. The learned counsel appearing for both the sides have made available to the Court copy of the said decision and as per the said judgment of the Reference Court in the said matter, it has relied upon the another decision of the Reference Court in LAR No.247/97 for acquisition of the land at Unjha, whereby the additional compensation was awarded at Rs.231/- per square metre in respect of the acquisition made vide notification under section 4 of the Act on 15.03.1992. Thereafter, since there was time gap of about 10 years and more, the appreciation is considered at the rate of 10% p.a. and compensation was fixed accordingly. Thereafter, since there was time gap of about 10 years and more, the appreciation is considered at the rate of 10% p.a. and compensation was fixed accordingly. The another aspect is that in the impugned judgement, the Reference Court has referred to and relied upon the decision of the Reference Court in earlier Land Reference Case Nos.248/97 to 350/97 in respect of the acquisition of the land at Unjha wherein the notification under section 4 of the Act was published on 15.03.1992 and the notification under section 6 of the Act was published on 21.12.1992 and the Reference Court ultimately had awarded the compensation at Rs.231/- per square metre vide judgement and award dated 13.03.2003. It may be recorded that against the aforesaid decision of the Reference Court, the matters were carried before this Court in First Appeals No.2147/04 to 2249/04 and this Court (Coram : J.M.Panchal and Smt.Abhilasha Kumari, J.J.) vide judgement dated 02.07.2007, did not interfere with the judgement and award of the Reference Court and dismissed of the appeals. Under these circumstances, it appears that the Reference Court in the impugned judgement after considering the time gap of the notification under section 4 of the Act in respect of the land acquired at Unjha has applied appreciation of 10% p.a. and has arrived at the market value at Rs.468/- per square metre in First Appeal No.2794/09 and allied matters and Rs.455/- per square metre in First Appeal No.1732/09 and allied matters and thereafter, as the compensation was already paid at Rs.18/- per square metre, the additional compensation has been awarded at Rs.450/- per square metre and Rs.437/- per square metre plus the statutory benefit. 7. In both the matters, the Reference Court has lost sight of the important aspect that Unjha is a municipal area whereas Brahmanwada is a gram panchayat area. In a case where the valuation is made of the land which is falling in the municipal area, it cannot be compared at para with the land situated at village area even if the boundary of municipal area and the boundary of the said village area may be touching to one another. The reason is that there would be basic difference in the infrastructural facilities and the amenities in the municipal area in comparison to the gram panchayat area. The reason is that there would be basic difference in the infrastructural facilities and the amenities in the municipal area in comparison to the gram panchayat area. For municipal area, there will be facilities of water, light, transportation, road, school, etc., which may not be available in the gram panchayat area. Further, even if it is considered that since the area is adjacent to each other, there was more development in gram panchayat area, which is adjacent to the municipal area, it appears to us that if it is to be examined for the purpose of tracing the appropriate valuation, such valuation will be minimum 30% less in comparison to the value of the land in the municipal area. It appears that the Reference Court has totally lost sight of the said aspect and has considered the valuation of the land at par with Unjha which is a municipal area. The learned counsel for the original claimants is also not in a position to show any evidence to the contrary save and except that the village of Brahmanwada is touching to Unjha city. In our view, would not make much difference as observed earlier and the difference of valuation by 30% at least would continue even after the boundary of the village attached to the municipal area since the basic difference of various facilities and infrastructure and development between the municipal area and the gram panchayat area would continue. 8. In view of the aforesaid observations and discussions in the group of First Appeal No.2794/09, as the valuation of the land is assessed by the Reference Court at Rs.468/-, it will have to be reduced by 30% and such amount would come to Rs.140.40 and if deducted from Rs.468/-, it would come to Rs.327.60 out of which, the amount at the rate Rs.18/- per square metre has already been awarded as compensation. Therefore, the net amount would come to Rs.309.60 per square metre being the additional amount of compensation. 9. Whereas, in the group of First Appeal No.1732/10, as the valuation is fixed at Rs.455/- per square metre, amount of 30% required to be reduced would come to Rs.136.50 and the net amount would come to Rs.318.50 out of which, as the amount of Rs.18/- per square metre has already been awarded as compensation, the additional amount of compensation would come to R.300.50. The other benefits which are awarded by the Reference Court are in the nature of statutory benefits and therefore, they are not required to be interfered with save and except to the extent that on account of the reduction of the principal amount of compensation, such amount would proportionately get reduced. 10. In view of the above observations and discussions, the judgement and the award passed by the Reference Court so far as they relate to exceeding Rs.309.60 in the group of First Appeal No.2794/19 and allied matters and exceeding Rs.300.50 in the group of First Appeal No.1732/09 and allied matters are quashed and set aside. The other benefits awarded by the Reference Court Court of solatium, increase in the price and interest as per the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act are not interfered with and even the direction issued for no deduction of the compensation in respect of the new tenure land is also not interfered with.” 9. It is pertinent to note that the decision of the Reference Court which was relied upon and considered by this Court in the above referred First Appeal No. 2794/2009 and allied matters and more particularly at para. 6 is the same, which has been considered by the Reference Court in the present group of matters. The valuation assessed is thereafter made at par with the value of the land located at Unjha city. 10. The another relevant aspect is that in the above referred decision, this Court, as per the observations made at para. 7 reproduced hereinabove, found that there will be minimum difference of 30% in the value of the land located at village site and within the municipal limits. Therefore, it appears to us that the same criteria for the purpose of finding out the difference between the value of the land at village Maktupur, which is in the present case and the value of the land at Unjha city is required to be taken. The Ld. Counsel for the claimants / respondents is not in a position to show any justifiable ground for not to consider the same. We are of the considered view that the reasons as recorded in the above referred judgment at para. The Ld. Counsel for the claimants / respondents is not in a position to show any justifiable ground for not to consider the same. We are of the considered view that the reasons as recorded in the above referred judgment at para. 7 has to be squarely applied for the land located at village Maktupur since the land in question at village Maktupur which is a village site; whereas Unjha city is a municipality and the land at Unjha would fall within the municipal limits. 11. However, we find that the basis taken by the Reference Court for considering valuation made of the land at Unjha city as back as in the year 1981 and thereafter to consider the appreciation could not be justified in the present case since the assessment made of the price at Rs.231/- per sq.mtr., for the land at Unjha city was confirmed by this Court in the group of First Appeal No. 2147/2004 and allied matters as referred to in the decision of First Appeal No. 2794/2009 and allied matters, more particularly at para. 6. Therefore, we find that the Reference Court has committed error to that extent. 12. Further, if the correct valuation of the land for village Maktupur is to be traced, the reliance can be made upon the market price assessed by this Court for the adjacent village Brahmanvada, whose boundaries are also touching to Unjha city. The another aspect is that in the above referred decision of First Appeal No. 2794/2009 and allied matters, notification under section 4 of the Act was published on 27/8/2002 and in the present groups also in majority of the cases, they have been published in August 2002, except in matters, which are subject matters of First Appeal Nos. 749/2010 to 787/2010 wherein the notification under section 4 of the Act was published on 20/12/2001 about 8 months earlier than August 2002. Hence, we find that the valuation made of the land at village Brahmanvada can be taken as a base for the correct valuation of the land at village Maktupur. 13. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it can be said that Rs.318.50 ps., per sq.mtr., could be the basis of the valuation even for the purpose of fixing the compensation in respect of the acquisition of the land in question at village Maktupur. 13. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it can be said that Rs.318.50 ps., per sq.mtr., could be the basis of the valuation even for the purpose of fixing the compensation in respect of the acquisition of the land in question at village Maktupur. However, the distinction as was considered by the Special Land Acquisition Officer for awarding the compensation while passing the award at Rs.10.50 ps., per sq.mtr., and Rs.15/- per sq.mtr., in the concerned award deserves to be considered. No evidence is brought to the notice of this Court to show that the distinction in fixing the compensation as recorded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer while passing the award as was for the land at village Brahmanvada and for the land at village Maktupur, was wrong or there were errors committed. Therefore, we find that if the amount of Rs.318.50 ps., per sq.mtr., is proportionately reduced on account of the fact that the Special Land Acquisition Officer had awarded the compensation at Rs.15/- per sq.mtr., such amount would come to Rs.265/- per sq.mtr., excluding the paise by rounding the figure. 14. It further appears that the Special Land Acquisition Officer, for the various parcels of the land at village Maktupur, which were acquired, in respect of one group of land, he has awarded the compensation at Rs.15/- per sq.mtr.; whereas for the remaining, he has awarded the compensation at Rs.10.50 ps., per sq.mtr. We have considered the award and it appears that though the land, as per the schedule, is mentioned as 'Jirayat – non-irrigated', in the body of the award, there is reference to the irrigation facility. Consequently, the land could be termed as irrigated land or the land with the irrigation facility. Such aspects, if taken into consideration, the difference in the compensation fixed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer for the different parcels of the land at the very village would not survive and it has to be at par with other irrigated land for which the compensation is fixed at Rs.15/- per sq.mtr. Therefore, we find that the value of the lands which have been acquired should be the same and the difference as considered by the Special Land Acquisition Officer of awarding the compensation at Rs.15/- per sq.mtr., and Rs.10.50 ps., per sq.mtr., should be ignored. 15. The Ld. Therefore, we find that the value of the lands which have been acquired should be the same and the difference as considered by the Special Land Acquisition Officer of awarding the compensation at Rs.15/- per sq.mtr., and Rs.10.50 ps., per sq.mtr., should be ignored. 15. The Ld. Counsel for the claimants is right in submitting that the village Maktupur is nearer to Unjha city in the comparison to the location of village Brahmanvada. It was submitted by him that on account of such situation, some additional benefit in the value of the land would be available to the land owners at village Maktupur. As such, if we consider the basis taken by the Reference Court, it has to be at par with the land at village Brahmanvada. However, since the valuation has been reduced by 30% by applying criteria of difference between the land located within the municipal limits and revenue village, we find that the said aspect of being nearer to the city on the comparison to the location of the land at village Brahmanvada slightly away from Unjha city would assume importance. Considering the facts and circumstances, we find that 5% benefit can be given being the higher value of the land at village Maktupur in comparison to the location of the land at village Brahmanvada. Hence, the 5% if added in the value of the land at Rs.265/- per sq.mtr., and the benefit shall be Rs.13.25 ps., and if rounded, would come to Rs.13/-. Hence, total would come to Rs.278/- per sq.mtr.” 8. Thus, reading of the aforesaid observations of the Hon’ble Division Bench, the present appeals preferred by the State Authorities arising out of the same common judgment and award requires consideration and is the same is hereby partly allowed, in aforesaid terms 9. From the record, it transpires that at the stage of admission of appeal, this Court vide order dated 28.04.2010 while admitting the appeal, had directed the appellant-State to deposit the award amount before the reference court within a period of 12 weeks, thereafter 10. Upon inquiring from the learned advocates for the respective parties, it transpires that no separate applications seeking stay against the impugned judgment and award were preferred along with the appeal. Upon inquiring from the learned advocates for the respective parties, it transpires that no separate applications seeking stay against the impugned judgment and award were preferred along with the appeal. Learned advocate for the respondents-original claimants has not been able to confirm on the aspect of the disbursement of the entire award amount as deposited by the appellant-State pursuant to the order dated 28.04.2010 11. Since the present appeals preferred by the State are partly allowed, the amount so deposited by the State in case has not been disbursed in favour of the claimants, the same is hereby directed to be released and disbursed in faour of the original claimants by considering the additional amount of compensation at the rate of Rs.278/- per sq. mtrs. instead of Rs.317/- per sq. mtrs as determined by the reference court 12. Needless to clarify that the claimants shall be entitled to the other consequential statutory benefits as awarded by the reference court under Sections 23(1-A), 23(2) and 28 of the Act as the same are not interfered with. However, the same shall be on the basis of additional amount of compensation as determined by this order. In view of the aforesaid observations, remaining amount of the deposited award amount shall be refunded to the appellants-State Authorities 13. In case, if the aforesaid amounts are already realized by the original claimants, the respondents-original claimants are hereby directed to reimburse the same to the appellants. Let such exercise be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order 14. In view of the aforesaid observations and discussions, the impugned judgment and award passed by the reference court stands modified, accordingly. The present First Appeals are partly allowed to the aforesaid extent 15. Record and proceedings, if any called for, be sent back to the concerned reference court forthwith.