JUDGMENT : A.Y. KOGJE, J. 1. This is a group of First Appeal is preferred by the Indian Railways being the acquiring body which has acquired various parcels of lands under the Land Acquisition Act and the proceedings initiated at the behest of appellant by respondent No.2-State of Gujarat. 2. The parcels of lands acquired fall within village Kansa, Taluka and District Patan for the public purpose of construction of Patan-Bhildi new broad gauge railway line. 3. The notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 03.03.2009 in Gazette and on 24.03.2009/21.03.2009 published in two daily newspapers at a conspicuous place in the village and final notification came to be published on 18.04.2009. Section 6 notification published on 29.09.2009, the hearing under Section 9 was scheduled on 16.04.2010, the award under Section 11 was declared by the Land Acquisition Officer on 04.11.2011. 4. Against the claim of the land holders for Rs.1,000/- per Sq.Mtr, the Land Acquisition Officer assessed the value of the land only at the rate of Rs.12/ - per Sq.Mtr of the land and Rs.13/- per Sq.Mtr for the land having access to the village pathway (Neliya). 5. Aggrieved by the award of the Land Acquisition Officer, the claimants filed the reference within the prescribed time contending inter alia that the assessed valuation of land is much on the lower side and considering various parameters like crop yield due to irrigation facility and other amenities available to the village claimed value of the land at Rs.1,000/- per Sq.Mtr against which the reference Court awarded the compensation at the rate of Rs.216/- per Sq.Mtr. 6. Aggrieved by the compensation thus awarded by the Reference Court, the railways have preferred the present appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act which came to be admitted by this Court vide order dated 21.07.2017 on the same day in a order below the Civil Application for stay, this Court directed stay of the impugned order on condition of deposit of entire awarded amount and permitted 50% withdrawal by the claimant and 50% to be deposited in Fixed Deposit of Nationalized Bank. 7. The claimants were also aggrieved by the award and hence filed Cross Objections on various grounds preliminary though on the ground of report of the District Valuation Committee. 7. The claimants were also aggrieved by the award and hence filed Cross Objections on various grounds preliminary though on the ground of report of the District Valuation Committee. This Court vide order dated 23.11.2017 admitted the Cross Objections and ordered it to be heard with main appeals. 8. Considering the commanality of the issues involved and contentions raised in all other appeals, the same are taken up for joint final hearing and facts are narrated from the lead appeal being First Appeal No.2441 of 2017 with Cross Objection No.81 of 2017. 9. The Principal Senior Civil Judge, Patan was pleased to partly allowed the Reference being L.A.R. No.80 of 2012 to 130 of 2012 and L.A.R. No.72 of 2012 (main Reference) and awarded (1) amount of Rs.216/- per sq. mtr. as additional amount of compensation to all the claimants of L.A.R. No.80 of 2012 to 130 of 2012 and L.A.R. No.72 of 2012 and (2) also awarded additional amount of solatium @ 30% on the market value of the acquired land as provided u/s.23(2) of the Act for the compulsory acquisition of land and (3) also awarded 12% p.a. on the market value of the acquired land for the period commencing from the date of publication of Notification u/s.4(1) of the Act to the date of the award passed by the Collector or the date of the taking of possession of the land, whichever is earlier as provided in sec.23(1A) of the Act and (4) also awarded interest at the rate of 9% for the first year and thereafter, interest awarded at the rate 15% on the additional amount of compensation as awarded u/s.28 of the Act till the amount of entire compensation, cost, charges and expenses are being paid to the claimants and (5) also awarded cost to the claimants and cost of the opponents to be borne by themselves and directed to draw the calculation sheet and to draw decree accordingly. 10. It is argued on behalf of the appellant that reliance was placed by the Ld. Reference Court in the resolution/report of District Evaluation Committee dated 14.12.2005 below Exh.14. Such estimation or market price or evaluation of market price of the land as fixed by the Collector under District Evaluation Committee cannot become the sole guiding factor to determine the additional amount of compensation to the claimant. Reference Court in the resolution/report of District Evaluation Committee dated 14.12.2005 below Exh.14. Such estimation or market price or evaluation of market price of the land as fixed by the Collector under District Evaluation Committee cannot become the sole guiding factor to determine the additional amount of compensation to the claimant. This situation or documentary evidence is not supported by any statutory provisions of law. Such document is clearly outside the purview of Section 23 of the Act and therefore, entire foundation of grant of additional amount of compensation to the claimant of this reference placing reliance on the documentary evidence below Exh.14 produced by the claimant, is contrary to the entire scheme of Section 23 of the Act. 11. It is further submitted that Reference Court ought to have made deduction from the same keeping in view size of plot allotted by Government, land under acquisition, nature of use, locality, other factors like; agricultural use, non- agricultural use and others relevant factors and therefore, to that extent, there have to be reduction from such market price fixed by the District Valuation Committee. Therefore, the Ld. Reference Court committed grave error. 12. On behalf of the claimants and opponents, the Cross Objections are filed. Learned advocate submitted that the market value assessed by the valuation committee dated 14.12.2005 produced at Exh.14, wherein valuation committee determined the market value of the Gamtal land at the rate of Rs.325/- Sq. Mtr. However, though having accepted the said market value, the Reference Court has committed error in considering the basic market value at Rs.280/- instead of Rs.325/-. It is submitted that learned Judge has rightly deducted 30% in view of judgment of this High Court, however, gravely erred in deducting 30% from the basic value of Rs.280/- instead of Rs.325/-, which is the market value determined by the Valuation Committee. It is submitted that learned Judge is not justified in considering the basic value of Rs.280/- as the value has already been determined by the Valuation Committee at the rate of Rs.325/- per Sq.Mtr. 13. The issue that comes up for consideration before this Court is the valuation arrived at by the District Valuation Committee, when parcel of land was acquired for the purpose of school in the very village. 13. The issue that comes up for consideration before this Court is the valuation arrived at by the District Valuation Committee, when parcel of land was acquired for the purpose of school in the very village. The decision of this Court in case of Gujarat State v/s. Amaji Mohnaji Thakore, reported in, 2010 (3) GLH 447 holds that the instances of valuation by the District Valuation Committee can be an appropriate guideline for deciding the price of the land. 14. Before the Reference Court, Exh. 14 is the valuation report which the Reference Court had taken into consideration in arriving at a price of Rs.216/-. In doing so, reasoning was adopted that if the market price is determined relying upon Exh. 14, the Evaluation Committee held a meeting on 14.12.2005 and decided to consider the market price as Rs. 325/- per square meter for 4047 Sq.m. land of Survey No.613 paiki located in the north of Kansa gaamtal for Primary School No.2. The lands in this case are also of Kansa village. Further, the final notification for acquisition under section 4 has been published on 18.04.2009. Thus, if the period between these two is considered, it is only around 3 years and 4 months. Therefore, if the Evaluation Committee orders compensation in this case based on the market value determined, then a just value can be arrived at. 15. The Evaluation Committee determined the rate of Rs.280/- per sq.m. for the land of Kansa village and after considering the location, frontage and assessment of the said land, it determined the rate as Rs.325/- per sq.m., considering the price rise of 15%. However, there is no evidence showing that the land acquired in this case has the location and frontage similar to the land allotted for the Primary School. Therefore, it determined Rs.280/- as the basic price. Further, upon considering the proceedings note of the Evaluation Committee at Exh.14, it becomes clear that the acquired land has been allotted for the primary school, i.e. for non-agricultural purpose. Moreover, High Court has held in case of Amaji Mohnaji Thakore (supra) that the land given by the Evaluation Committee is considered as the non-agricultural land and therefore, for the acquired land, 30% price has been reduced from its price. As per this principle, considering 30% price decrease in the price of Rs.280/-, Rs.84/- per sq.m. is required to be deducted. As per this principle, considering 30% price decrease in the price of Rs.280/-, Rs.84/- per sq.m. is required to be deducted. Thus, the basic price can be considered as Rs.196/-. Further, considering the price of the land determined by the Evaluation Committee at Exh. 14, it becomes clear that the said land is located nearby in the north of the Gaamtal. Whereas there is no evidence that the acquired land is located nearby the Gaamtal and amidst the human population. Therefore, it is appropriate and necessary to decrease 10% price under that head. Thus, decreasing 10% of 196/- accordingly, and deducting the round figure of 20/-, the basic price arrived was Rs.176/- Sq Mrt.. 16. In the opinion of the Court, an error has crept in appreciation of District Valuation Committee’ s report at Exh.14, where in para-2 valuation of a parcel of land of village Kansa was taken into consideration. The price arrived by the District Valuation Committee was Rs.325/- per Sq.Mtr however, while doing so, four sale instances of adjoining lands were taken into consideration giving an escalation of 10% increase, at the same time considering the smallness of the plot and its shape, deduction of 30% was applied and upon deduction of such 30%, the amount arrived at being Rs.280/- to which 15% was added on account of the land in question having location of frontage to village road, thereby arriving at a price of Rs.322/- per Sq.Mtr. 16.1 In the opinion of the Court, the base price arrived at by the District Valuation Committee to the tune of Rs.325/- per Sq.Mtr was with deduction of 30% on the ground of smallness of the plot which deduction of 30% would not be applicable to the present parcels of land as the lands to be acquired is large parcel of land. However, such 30% deduction would be applicable considering the land to be an agricultural land and therefore, against the base price of Rs.325/-, deduction of 30% is applied which comes up to Rs.227.50/ (Rs.325/- minus Rs.97.5/- deduction), which would be price as on December 2005. However, such 30% deduction would be applicable considering the land to be an agricultural land and therefore, against the base price of Rs.325/-, deduction of 30% is applied which comes up to Rs.227.50/ (Rs.325/- minus Rs.97.5/- deduction), which would be price as on December 2005. Section 4 notification in the present acquisition is of April 2009 and therefore, an escalation at the rate of 10% of the market value will have to be added and accordingly, Rs.227.50/- plus Rs.75.89/- (escalation at the rate of 10% for a period of three years and four months) will amount to Rs.303.30/-, rounded upto Rs.303/- per Sq.Mtr, which is in tabular form as under:- Sr.No. Particulars Amount (Rs.) 1. Base Price 325/- 2. 30% Deduction 227.5/- (Rs325-97.5/-)(30%) 3. Escalation at the rate of 10% 22.75 (227.5x10%) 4. Considering the period of three years 68.25 (22.75x 3) 5. Considering the period of four months 7.58 (22.7/4 months) Total 227.5+68.25+7.58= 303.33 Rounded upto 303/- 17. Therefore, in the opinion of the Court, the ends of justice will be met with if the price of the land is assessed at Rs.303/- per Sq.Mtr. 18. The impugned judgment and award is therefore, interfered with only to the extent of assessing the valuation of the land and enhancing the same to Rs.303/- as against Rs.216/-, valuation arrived at by the Reference Court. The remaining part of the award/operative part is hereby confirmed. 19. While considering the appeal, anomaly is brought to the notice of the Court, wherein in the schedule drawn as per the award of the Reference Court, in column No.5 which has title of additional price rupees per Sq.Mtr, wherein the figure of Rs.216/- is reflected however, the Reference Court has treated the price of the land per Sq.Mtr to be Rs.216/- and therefore, figure mentioned in column No.5 is not an additional price, but total price of the land which would include the amount paid by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. The Special Land Acquisition Officer has paid the compensation by considering the value of the land to be Rs.12 per Sq.Mtr and Rs.13/- per Sq.Mtr and therefore, in the schedule in column No.5, figure which ought to have been reflected is Rs.203/- and Rs.204/- for the land having access to the village pathway (Neliya). However, now the schedule will have to be brought in conformity with the present order. 20. However, now the schedule will have to be brought in conformity with the present order. 20. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the award is required to be interfered to the aforesaid extent only. Hence, it is directed that schedule particularly column 5 be amended accordingly. 21. In view of the aforesaid, the Cross objections are allowed to the aforesaid extent. The appeals are hereby dismissed.