JUDGMENT : HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK, J. 1. Present appeal is filed by the appellant - Surat Municipal Corporation under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act r/w Section 96 of Civil Procedure Code against judgment and award dated 28.10.2010 passed by 6th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Surat (hereinafter be referred to as the "Reference Court") in Land Reference Case No. 170 of 1987 whereby the Reference Court has partly allowed the said reference case and awarded compensation of Rs.50,168/- in favour of claimant. FACTS OF THE CASE: 2. The facts giving rise to present appeal are that an award was declared on 22.09.1986 by the Special Land Acquisition Officer in respect of the acquisition of land admeasuring 60 sq. meters situated at Surat City, Ward No. 4, bearing Revenue Survey Nos. 882 and 883. The said land was acquired for a public purpose, namely, the construction of widening the road by the appellant– Corporation. A notification dated 11.9.1975 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act had been issued for this purpose. 2.1 As per the case of the original claimant the acquired land was in possession of tenants and the compensation awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer was on a very low scale and inadequate. Though the claimant had asserted and produced evidence that the prevailing market value of the land was Rs.2,000/- per sq. yard, the Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation only at the rate of Rs.700/- per sq. meter. The amount of Rs.8,904/- awarded towards the value of the superstructure/construction was grossly inadequate and that the claimant was entitled to at least Rs.75,000/- towards the said construction. 2.2 The claimant, therefore, filed an application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act seeking a reference to the District Court for determination of just and proper compensation i.e. Rs.2,000/- per Sq. Mtr.. The said reference was accordingly made and registered as Land Reference Case No. 170 of 1987. In the said proceedings, the present appellant–Corporation was joined as Opponent No. 2. 2.3 The State Government filed its written reply at Exhibit 8 through the learned Government Pleader, contending inter alia that it was for the claimant to prove ownership or interest in the acquired land; that the compensation awarded was just, legal, and proper; and that the claim for enhancement was exaggerated and untenable. 2.3 The State Government filed its written reply at Exhibit 8 through the learned Government Pleader, contending inter alia that it was for the claimant to prove ownership or interest in the acquired land; that the compensation awarded was just, legal, and proper; and that the claim for enhancement was exaggerated and untenable. The appellant–Corporation also filed its written statement along with relevant documentary evidence opposing the claim. 2.4 The learned Reference Court framed the issues at Exhibit 31 which read as under:- "1. Whether the claimant is interested person in the acquired land? 2. Whether it is proved that the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer is inadequate? 3. If yes, What additional Compensation should be awarded to the claimants? 4. What Order? 2.5 Before the trial Court the appellant and respondents have produced documentary as well as oral evidence which read as under:- 2.6 List of evidence on behalf of the appellant-original claimant: Sr. No. Particulars of Evidence Exhibit No. 1 Affidavit-in-evidence of Applicant Nareshbhai Mohanlal 87 2 Deposition on oath of witness Mohanlal Chhotalal Gandhi on behalf of the applicant 89 3 Certified copy of Property Card of property situated at Surat City, Ward No. 4, City Survey No. 882 81 4 Certified copy of Property Card of property situated at Surat City, Ward No. 4, City Survey No. 883 82 5 True copy of Sale Deed of property situated at Surat City, Ward No. 4, registered under Entry No. 46 83 6 True copy of Sale Deed of property situated at Surat City, Ward No. 4, registered under Entry No. 407 84 7 True copy of Sale Deed of property situated at Surat City, Ward No. 4, registered under Entry No. 1803 85 2.7 List of evidence on behalf of respondent-original defendant No.1: Sr. No. Particulars of Evidence Exhibit No. 1 Deposition on oath of Opponent No. 1 – Shri Jashubhai Jalabhai Bilwal 93 2.8 List of evidence on behalf of respondent-original defendant No.2: Sr. No. Particulars of Evidence Exhibit No. 1 Deposition on oath of Opponent No. 2 – Shri Rajendrabhai Chhanabhai Patel 95 2.9 The trial Court, after considering the oral and documentary evidence placed on record by both sides, by judgment and award dated 28.10.2010, partly allowed the reference by enhancing the compensation to the tune of Rs.50,168/-. No. Particulars of Evidence Exhibit No. 1 Deposition on oath of Opponent No. 2 – Shri Rajendrabhai Chhanabhai Patel 95 2.9 The trial Court, after considering the oral and documentary evidence placed on record by both sides, by judgment and award dated 28.10.2010, partly allowed the reference by enhancing the compensation to the tune of Rs.50,168/-. 2.10 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said judgment and award, the appellant–Corporation has preferred the present appeal. 3. Heard Mr. Kaushal D. Pandya, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. K.M. Sheth, learned counsel for the respondent claimant. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT: 4. Mr. Kaushal D. Pandya, learned counsel for the appellant, has submitted that the Reference Court, without considering the documentary evidence produced by the appellant relating to the sale instances of properties situated in the same ward (Ward No. 4, City Survey Nos. 913, 992, and 993, and another property in Ward No. 7, City Survey No. 4571), erred in its decision. He urged that, considering the price mentioned in all three sale instances, wherein the maximum sale price is Rs. 650.40 per sq. meter, the same should have been taken into account. He has submitted that all the three sale deeds were also considered by the Special Land Acquisition Officer at the time of awarding compensation under Section 11 of the Act. He has also submitted that the average rate of all three sale instances can be considered at Rs. 650/- per sq. meter, and accordingly, the amount of Rs. 700/- per sq. meter deserves to be awarded. 4.1 Mr. Pandya, learned counsel for the appellant, has submitted that the sale instances referred to by the Special Land Acquisition Officer and relied upon by the Reference Court in paragraph No. 13 pertain to the years 1972, 1974, and the last transaction dated 20.03.1975, whereas in the present acquisition, the notification under Section 4 was issued on 11.09.1975. Therefore, the Reference Court has committed a serious error in disbelieving the said sale instances, which is contrary to the settled principles of law as well as the facts on record. 4.2 Learned counsel for the appellant has further contended that the amount awarded in favour of the present respondent original claimant is on very higher side and there was no sufficient material produced before the court. 4.2 Learned counsel for the appellant has further contended that the amount awarded in favour of the present respondent original claimant is on very higher side and there was no sufficient material produced before the court. He has submitted that in fact, all the properties were in possession of the tenant and therefore, under such circumstances, the amount awarded by the reference court is erroneous, illegal and very excessive. 4.3 Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the impugned judgment and award passed by the trial Court is contrary to law and passed without proper appreciation of facts, evidence, and legal provisions on record. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the trial Court has erred in exercising jurisdiction not vested in it, and has failed to consider the fundamental requirement that the claimant must establish his ownership or interest in the acquired land. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the trial Court has ignored material admissions made by the claimant in cross-examination, including the fact of participation in legal proceedings before the Hon’ble Apex Court, and has wrongly disregarded the evidence that the land acquisition officer had already considered relevant sale instances while determining the award. 4.4 Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the trial Court has committed a serious error in awarding an exorbitant rate of Rs.1,000/- per sq. mtr. as compensation, and further in granting 30% solatium, 12% additional market value, and interest at 9% and 15% p.a., despite the fact that the value of the land during the relevant period (1971-72) was not so high. 4.5 Lastly, learned counsel for the appellant urges before the Court that present appeal may be allowed and the impugned judgment and award passed by the trial Court may be quashed and set aside. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS: 5. On the other hand, Mr. K. M. Sheth, learned counsel for the respondent-claimant, has submitted that the documentary evidence referred to and relied upon by the Special Land Acquisition Officer was neither produced nor proved by examining any witness on behalf of the appellant, and therefore, the sale instances heavily relied upon by the appellant were rightly discarded by the Reference Court. K. M. Sheth, learned counsel for the respondent-claimant, has submitted that the documentary evidence referred to and relied upon by the Special Land Acquisition Officer was neither produced nor proved by examining any witness on behalf of the appellant, and therefore, the sale instances heavily relied upon by the appellant were rightly discarded by the Reference Court. 5.1 Learned counsel for the respondent-claimant has also submitted that all the properties are situated abutting the main road in a prime location, where the properties are either used for commercial activities or residential purposes, and are, in fact, fetching a very high price as compared to the amounts mentioned in the sale instances. 5.2 Learned counsel for the respondent-claimant has submitted that if the property was sold in the year 1971, i.e., about four years prior to the date of the notification, at the rate of Rs. 650/- per square meter, then an increase of 40% is also required to be added. He has submitted that it was not considered by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, and therefore, after considering the submissions advanced by the appellant before the Reference Court, the Reference Court has rightly dealt with the said aspects in paragraph Nos. 14, 15, and 16. Hence, under such circumstances, the present appeal is devoid of any merit and deserves to be dismissed. 5.3 Mr. Sheth, learned counsel for the respondent, has further relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Kanji Bhai Haridas Patel vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2003 (1) GLR 689 and submitted that in view of the said decision, the cross objection filed by the original claimant is required to be allowed as prayed in the cross objection. CONCLUSION: 6. I have perused the relevant documents and material placed on record. I have also gone through the record and proceedings as well as impugned judgment and award passed by the trial Court. 7. It appears that the appeal came to be admitted by this Court vide order dated 01.02.2012. CONCLUSION: 6. I have perused the relevant documents and material placed on record. I have also gone through the record and proceedings as well as impugned judgment and award passed by the trial Court. 7. It appears that the appeal came to be admitted by this Court vide order dated 01.02.2012. The Court had also granted interim relief in Civil Application No. 13594 of 2011, whereby the appellant was directed to deposit the entire amount before the Reference Court, out of which 50% of the amount was permitted to be withdrawn by the respondent–original claimant, and the remaining 50% was directed to be invested in an FDR, the receipt of which was to be kept in the custody of the Nazir. 8. It is pertinent to note herein that, cross-objection has also been filed by the respondent original claimant contending that the amount awarded by the Reference Court is less than the amount claimed, and that instead of Rs.1,000/-, the amount of Rs.1,500/- per sq. mtr. ought to have been awarded. 9. At this stage, it is appropriate to refer the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Manohar and others vs. The State of Maharashtra and others reported in 2025 INSC 900 , whereby the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under :- "40. It is well-settled that the compensation payable to the owner of the land is determined by reference to the price which a seller might reasonably expect to obtain from a willing purchaser. It is further settled law that the land acquired has to be valued not only with reference to its condition at the time of notification under Section 4 of the LA Act but its potential value must be taken into account. In this respect, the sale deeds of lands situated in the vicinity and the comparable benefits and advantages which they have, provide a ready method of computing the market value. 46. It was sought to be contended by the learned counsel for the Respondent No. 3 (MIDC) that the Reference Court has rightly used the principle of averaging of sale price of sale exemplars at Sr. No. 1, 2, 3 and 5 for determination of market value of acquired land. 46. It was sought to be contended by the learned counsel for the Respondent No. 3 (MIDC) that the Reference Court has rightly used the principle of averaging of sale price of sale exemplars at Sr. No. 1, 2, 3 and 5 for determination of market value of acquired land. However, it is clear from a reading of paragraph 20 of the judgment of this Court in the case of Anjani Molu Dessai (supra) that the legal position is that even where there are several exemplars with reference to similar lands, usually the highest of the exemplars, which is a bonafide transaction will be considered. Further, only where there are several sales of similar lands whose prices range in a narrow bandwidth, the average thereof can be taken, as representing the market price. The said position of law was reiterated in the judgment of this Court in the cases of Mehrawal Khewaji Trust (supra) and Mohammad Yusuf (supra). 49. It is further to be noted that only because the Reference Court, without recording any reason, decided to completely overlook/omit the sale instance at Sr. No. 4 and only took into consideration the sale instances at Sr. Nos.1, 2, 3 and 5, which are having value of Rs.40,000/- per Acre, Rs.41,000/- per Acre, Rs.40,000/- per Acre and Rs.40,000/- per Acre respectively;............ 50. Having held thus, we, however, cannot lose sight of the aspect that the ten sale exemplars placed before the Reference 30 Court by the claimants/Appellants are of small plots of land in Jintur town, each of them being less than 1 Hectare. The Reference Court, therefore, correctly came to the conclusion that while accepting the sale instances a reasonable reduction requires to be made. As such, the land which is acquired being much larger in area, the Reference Court applied a deduction of 20% in the price determined. Being in agreement with the same, while accepting the sale exemplar at Sr. No. 4 dated 31st March 1990, and having market value of Rs. 72,900/- per Acre, we deem it appropriate to apply a deduction of 20% i.e., Rs. 14,580/- per Acre" 10. The Trial Court, in paragraph No. 17 of the impugned judgment and award, has considered the average price of the three transactions and awarded Rs.1,000/-. No. 4 dated 31st March 1990, and having market value of Rs. 72,900/- per Acre, we deem it appropriate to apply a deduction of 20% i.e., Rs. 14,580/- per Acre" 10. The Trial Court, in paragraph No. 17 of the impugned judgment and award, has considered the average price of the three transactions and awarded Rs.1,000/-. However, in view of paragraph No. 49 of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Manohar (supra), such finding is erroneous. 11. However, in the present case, the Reference Court has not considered the sale instance referred to, relied upon, and produced by the respondent–original claimant (i.e. Exh. 85 - True copy of Sale Deed of property situated at Surat City, Ward No. 4, registered under Entry No. 1803 and Exh. 89- Deposition on oath of witness Mohanlal Chhotalal Gandhi. Even sale instance at Exh.85 is of July 1975 and in present case the notification under Section 4 is of September 1975 i.e. after two months of the sale transaction. Therefore, I am of the opinion that learned trial Court has committed an error while disbelieving the said sale transaction and awarded an amount of Rs.1,000/- per square meter by considering aggregate amount which is contrary to the settled principle of law and thus, so far as the appeal filed by the appellant corporation is concerned the same deserves to be dismissed and the cross objection filed by the respondent original claimant deserves to be allowed and thus, considering the sale instance of Exh. 85, the amount of Rs.1,500/-, in my view, is just and adequate. 12. On perusal of the documentary as well as the oral evidence and the record and proceedings, so far as the first appeal is concerned, the findings recorded by the Trial Court in the impugned judgment and award are in consonance with the settled principles of law and are based on proper appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence brought on record. The Reference Court has assigned cogent and convincing reasons while determining the market value, and such findings are supported by contemporaneous sale instances as well as other relevant materials placed on record. Therefore, the appeal filed by the corporation requires to be dismissed. 13. The Reference Court has assigned cogent and convincing reasons while determining the market value, and such findings are supported by contemporaneous sale instances as well as other relevant materials placed on record. Therefore, the appeal filed by the corporation requires to be dismissed. 13. It is also required to be noted herein that the appellant has not produced any reliable or substantial evidence to dislodge the findings of the Trial Court, nor has any material irregularity, perversity or error apparent on the face of the record been pointed out during the course of arguments. However, so far as the cross objection is concerned, I am of the opinion that the contention raised by the respondent original claimant in the cross-objection seeking enhancement of the amount requires to be allowed and the assessment made by the Trial Court is arbitrary and in adequate. 14. Upon overall consideration of the oral as well as documentary evidence and the record and proceedings, this Court is of the view that the price determined by the Reference Court is erroneous. There was sufficient evidence in the form of oral testimony at Exh.89 and documentary evidence at Exh.85, which pertains to a transaction just two months prior to the date of notification issued for the acquisition of the present parcel of land. Therefore, it was a relevant sale instance prior to the notification under Section 4, which was required to be considered at the time of determining the market price. Hence, the findings recorded by the Reference Court in ignoring those documents and instead considering the average price are unsustainable and are required to be quashed and set aside. Consequently, the cross-objection deserves to be allowed and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 15. For the foregoing reasons present appeal is hereby dismissed. At the same time, the cross objection is hereby allowed. So far as the Cross Objection filed by the original claimant is concerned the judgment and award dated 28.10.2010 passed by the Reference Court in Land Reference Case No. 170 of 1987 is hereby modified to the extend that instead of Rs.1,000/- per square meter, the amount of compensation is hereby enhanced at the rate of Rs.1,500/- per square meter. The other observation with regard to the statutory benefits provided under the Act shall remain intact. 16. The other observation with regard to the statutory benefits provided under the Act shall remain intact. 16. In view of the above observations, since the Reference Court has already awarded Rs.1,000/- per square meter now, the claimant is entitled to receive an additional amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.500/- per square meter with statutory benefits. Hence, the additional amount of compensation of Rs.500/- per square meter over and above the amount awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer and Reference Court along with statutory benefits shall be deposited by Corporation within period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of present order. Upon deposit, the same shall be disbursed in favour of original claimant, who has filed cross objection, within a period of four weeks, after verifying bank details of the claimant and after following due procedure through RTGS/NEFT. The record and proceedings, if received, shall be transmitted to the concerned Reference Court forthwith.