JUDGMENT : (Nisha M. Thakore, J.) 1. The present appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, is directed against the judgment and award dated 31.08.2016 passed below Exhibit 38 by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Patan, in Land Acquisition Reference No.310 of 2011 (Main case) and other allied matters. By the said common judgment and award, the learned Judge has partly allowed the Reference and has enhanced the amount of compensation determining the market value of land acquired at the rate of Rs. 106/- per Sq. Mtr. in lands, having no right of entry through Nalia Marg or existing Pakka road for entry and Rs.105/- per Sq. Mtr. in lands having right of entry through Nalia road. Apart from the aforesaid enhanced amount of compensation, the learned Judge has also awarded consequential statutory benefits of solatium along with interest. 2. In order to appreciate the dispute involved in the appeal, it would be appropriate to revisit the relevant dates of acquisition proceedings. The same are summarized as under: 2.1 The appellant - Railway Authority intended to acquire various parcels of land situated in village: Kalodhi of District: Patan for the construction of Patan – Bhildi New Broad Gauge Railway line for public purpose. The Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act being LAQ Case No.5/2009 was published in the Gazette on 26.08.2009 declaring the aforesaid intention to acquire the lands specified in the schedule. The aforesaid Notification was subsequently published in two local newspapers and was also displayed at the convenient places in the locality on 20.9.2009 and 17.11.2009 respectively. The said Notification was followed by Notification issued under Section 6 of the Act. Finally, the Notification under Section 6 of the Act was later on published on 01.04.2020. 2.2 The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Patan, after following procedure prescribed under the Act, passed an award under Section 11 on 16.07.2011 in LAQ Case No.5/2009. The Special Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation of Rs.7,66,763/- for total acquired land of 4 H. - 03 RA and 35 Sq. Mtr. 2.3 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid market value determined by the Land Acquisition Officer, the land owners sought Reference under Section 18 of the Act. The said References were registered with the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Patan on 15.12.2011 being Land Reference Case Nos.310 to 319 of 2011. Mtr. 2.3 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid market value determined by the Land Acquisition Officer, the land owners sought Reference under Section 18 of the Act. The said References were registered with the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Patan on 15.12.2011 being Land Reference Case Nos.310 to 319 of 2011. Considering the facts of the case, the learned Judge by an order dated 23.01.2014 had consolidated the aforesaid Land Reference Cases, whereby the Land Reference Case No.310 of 2011 was treated as main matter. 2.4 The Reference Court partly allowed the Reference Cases and awarded the compensation by fixing market value of lands acquired at the rate of Rs.118.05 Paise per Sq. Mtr. The original claimants – land owners have mainly relied upon the earlier decision of the Reference Court in the case of acquisition of lands of village: Vayad being Land Reference Case Nos.1 of 2012 to 42 of 2012, decided on 30.12.2015, which was produced at Exhibit 33 as well as the decision of the Reference Court dated 16.07.2014 in Land Reference Case Nos.240 of 2011 to 250 of 2011, wherein the lands were acquired for Sujalam Sufalam Spreading Canal Yojana produced at Exhibit 32. Hence, this appeal against the aforesaid award of enhancement at the instance of Railways. 3. Ms. Archana Amin, learned advocate for the appellant Railway has at the outset, placed on record the letter dated 01.12.2015 addressed by the Narmada, Water Resource, Water Supply & Kalpasar Department to the Executive Engineer, Sujalam Sufalam Spreading Canal Yojana, Circle No.2, Kherva, Mehsana and has submitted that the State Government has accepted the aforesaid decision dated 16.07.2014 passed by the Reference Court in Land Acquisition Reference Case Nos.240 to 250 of 2011 in the case of acquisition of land of village: Vayad, Taluka and District: Patan for Sujalam Sufalam Spreading Canal Yojana, which was otherwise relied by the original claimants before the Reference Court in the present acquisition proceedings. 4. Mr. Prajapati, learned advocate for the respondents – original claimants has argued that copy of the aforesaid award dated 16.07.2014 passed in Land Acquisition Reference Case Nos.240 to 250 of 2011 was placed on record for consideration before the Reference Court at Exhibit 28. Our attention was invited to the details of documentary evidence placed on record reflected in the impugned judgment. Mr. Our attention was invited to the details of documentary evidence placed on record reflected in the impugned judgment. Mr. Prajapati, learned advocate has fairly pointed out that the said case acquisition was in the case of different village i.e. Vayad and different public purpose. However, the learned Judge while considering the aforesaid decision, upon appreciation of Exhibit 31, which is a copy of the map of aforesaid villages has notice that the lands of village: Kalodhi and village: Vayad shared the village boundaries and are situated adjoining to each other. He has further invited our attention to the relevant observations arrived at by the learned Judge in the Reference proceedings, as regards the decision of the Reference Court in the case of village: Vayad, in Land Acquisition Reference Case No.1 of 2012 and allied matters. According to the learned advocate, present appeal deserves to be dismissed as no error has been committed by the learned Judge while partly allowing the Reference Cases. The letter produced on record reaffirmed the aforesaid facts. 5. On behalf of the respondent No.2, the Special Land Acquisition Officer, learned AGP Ms. Pooja Ashar has appeared and has assisted the Court. 6. We have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. It is an undisputed fact that the lands of the original claimants have been acquired for the public purpose i.e. for the construction of Patan – Bhildi New Broad Gauge Railway line. The Railway authorities have undertaken necessary steps to acquire the lands by following due procedure of law as prescribed under the Act. We have carefully read the impugned judgment and award passed by the Reference Court as well as have also perused the R & P. On perusal of the records, it is evident that the instances, which were placed for consideration before the Reference Court included the award passed in Land Acquisition Reference Case No.240 of 2011 and allied matters at Exhibit 28 and in the case of Land Acquisition Reference Case No.1 of 2012 and allied matters at Exhibit 30, in the case of village: Vayad. 7. Reading of the findings in the case of Land Acquisition Reference No.1 of 2012 and allied matters, goes to indicate that the said Reference arose from Land Acquisition Case No.2 of 2009. The Notification under Section 4 of the aforesaid case was issued on 15.09.2009 and was later on published on 20.10.2009. 7. Reading of the findings in the case of Land Acquisition Reference No.1 of 2012 and allied matters, goes to indicate that the said Reference arose from Land Acquisition Case No.2 of 2009. The Notification under Section 4 of the aforesaid case was issued on 15.09.2009 and was later on published on 20.10.2009. The said Notification was followed by Section 6 Notification dated 30.12.2009 which was published on 28.01.2010. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Patan, had passed an award under Section 11 of the Act on 04.11.2011 and had thereby fixed the market value of land at the rate of Rs.12/Rs.13 per Sq. Mtr. The affected persons – the land owners of the aforesaid acquired land of village: Vayad had approached the Reference Court, which was registered as Land Acquisition Reference Case No.1 of 2012 and allied matters. In the aforesaid proceedings, the affected persons have heavily relied upon earlier decision of the Reference Court in the case of Land Acquisition Reference Case No.240 to 250 of 2011, which were produced at Exhibit 22. The Reference Court had noticed the relevant details of issuance of Notification under Section 4 i.e. dated 19.07.2004 base as against the price, which was fixed at Rs.85.85 per Sq. Mtr. The Reference Court further noticed that there was difference of hardly five years gap between these two Notifications and relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, accepted the case of the affected persons to the extent by giving rise of 7.5% every year. The Reference Court further noticed that the lands acquired were falling in the rural area and there was no major developments in surrounding talukas during this period. Accordingly, the Reference Court had determined the increase in market value of land every year at Rs.85.85 x 7.5% = Rs.6.44 per Sq. Mtr. By giving benefit of rise per year, the Reference Court determined additional increase of base price i.e. Rs.6.44 x 5 years = Rs.32.20 per Sq. Mtr. for five years. Thus, the total market value of acquired land was finally determined as Rs.32.20 + Rs.85.85= Rs.118.05 per Sq. Mtr. Considering the fact that the Special Land Acquisition Officer had awarded a sum of Rs.13/- per Sq. Mtr., the affected persons of Land Acquisition Reference Case No.1 of 2012 and allied matters were held entitle to the market value at the rate of Rs.105.05 per Sq. Mtr. Mtr. Considering the fact that the Special Land Acquisition Officer had awarded a sum of Rs.13/- per Sq. Mtr., the affected persons of Land Acquisition Reference Case No.1 of 2012 and allied matters were held entitle to the market value at the rate of Rs.105.05 per Sq. Mtr. followed by consequential statutory benefits of solatium and interest. 8. The letter dated 01.12.2015 is placed for consideration before us in the present appeal. It is expressly stated by the State of having accepted the aforesaid decision of the Reference Court in Land Acquisition Reference No.240 to 250 of 2011 of village: Vayad. In other words, the State Government has accepted the determination of base price at the rate of Rs.85.85 per Sq. Mtr. in case of lands acquired for purpose of Canal Project of village: Vayad. The aforesaid base price as determined by Reference Court has been followed in Land Reference Case No.1 of 2012 and allied matters, which has been followed in present case. We are of the view that in absence of any sale instance brought on record in present acquisition proceedings, no error can be found with the approach of the Reference Court relying upon the said decision for the determination of market value in respect of village: Kalodhi. As rightly pointed out by the learned advocate for the original claimants and as evident from the village map produced at Exhibit 31, the lay out plan suggest that the villages Kalodhi and Vayad are sharing common village boundaries. It is also worth to mention that the Notification under Section 4 in the case of Land Acquisition Reference No.1 of 2012 relates to 15.09.2009/20.10.2009, whereas in the present case, the Notification was issued on 26.08.2009, which was later on published on 20.09.2009/17.11.2009. Hence, difference of period between two Notifications is hardly of 27 days. The Reference Court has therefore, rightly relied upon said decision to assess the market value of Village: Kalodhi at Rs.106/- per Sq. Mtr. and Rs.105/- per Sq. Mtr. Hence, the market value determined by the Reference Court in the case of village: Kalodhi is not required to be interfered with. 9. In view of the aforesaid observations, we do not find any error in the award, which may warrant interference in the present Appeal. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merits in the Appeal. Hence, the same is hereby dismissed. 9. In view of the aforesaid observations, we do not find any error in the award, which may warrant interference in the present Appeal. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merits in the Appeal. Hence, the same is hereby dismissed. 10. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, the interim order dated 05.03.2018 passed by this Court in Civil Application hereby stands vacated. The Nazir of the concerned Court is directed to release and disburse the amount lying in the Fixed Deposit Receipts to be paid to the claimants by A/c. Payee Cheque subject to verification. R & P be sent back to the concerned Court forthwith.