ORDER : (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE) 1. The Civil Applications are filed at different times pending the First Appeal. Civil Application No.1 of 2023 was filed along with the filing of First Appeal with the prayer as under: “A) Your Lordships may be pleased to allow this application; and B) Your Lordships may be pleased to stay the impugned judgment and award dated 23-02-2023 by the Ld. Addl. Sr. Civil Judge, Tapi at Vyara passed in Land Reference Application No.78/2012. (Old No.61/2007) during the pendency and final disposal of this appeal; and BB) Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the Respondent No.2 to takeover balance area of acquired land admeasuring 100230 Sq. mtrs. i.e. 24.77 acres from the Resp. Nos.1.1 to 1.3 and handover the same in favour of applicant-company during the pendency and final disposal of this Appeal; C) Your Lordships may be pleased to grant ad-interim relief in terms of above sub-para (B);” 1.1. While Civil Application No.1 of 2025 was filed later, on account of certain subsequent development; with prayer clause as under: “A. Your Lordships may be pleased to allow this Application; and B. Your Lordships may be pleased to stay further proceedings of LAR Execution No.3/23 pending before the Ld. Principal Sr. Civil Judge at Vyara, Dist. Tapi, during the pendency and final disposal of captioned First Appeal; and C. Your Lordships may be pleased to pass an order withholding the amount of Rs.4.72 Cr. and not to be released in favour of Respondents-Claimants (Decree Holders) and further to invest the same in with any nationalized bank vide FDRs till the final adjudication of the caption First Appeal; and D. Your Lordships may be pleased to grant ad-interim relief in terms of Sub-Para (B & C) pending hearing and final disposal of caption First Appeal; 2. The First Appeal is preferred under Section 54 of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT , 1894 by the Appellant-Company against the judgment and award dated 23-02-2023 by Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tapi at Vyara in Land Reference Application No.78/2012. (Old No.61/2007). 3. The Acquisition proceedings were pertaining to acquisition of Land bearing Block No.207 of Village-Gunsada ad-measuring 1,40,504 square meters. The facts not in dispute are Section-4 Notification, which was published on 21-04-2005, Section-6 Declaration on 08-08-2005. The award under Section-11 was made by Land Acquisition Officer on 27-12-2006. (Old No.61/2007). 3. The Acquisition proceedings were pertaining to acquisition of Land bearing Block No.207 of Village-Gunsada ad-measuring 1,40,504 square meters. The facts not in dispute are Section-4 Notification, which was published on 21-04-2005, Section-6 Declaration on 08-08-2005. The award under Section-11 was made by Land Acquisition Officer on 27-12-2006. The reference under LAND ACQUISITION ACT under Section-18 appear to have been made in the year 2007, as the Old Reference No. is assigned as 61/2007, which was given New Reference No.78/2012 and the Reference was ultimately decided on 23-02-2023 (impugned). 4. The Appeal is by the aggrieved appellant-Company in whose benefit, the Acquisition proceedings have taken place and the grievance is primarily to the valuation of the Land. The Land Acquisition Officer has assessed the land at the rate of Rs.124/- square meter, which the Reference Court has enhanced to Rs.950/- per square meter. It is this increase in Land Valuation, the Appellant-Company has challenged in the First Appeal on various grounds. 5. Original claimants have also preferred First Appeal No.1653/2023 against the very judgment and award claiming the valuation of land at the rate of Rs.950/- per square meter is on the lower side and claimed additional compensation at the rate of Rs.1500/- per square meter. That Appeal stands admitted. 6. In the present Appeal, this Court has passed an initial order dated 26-06-2023 referring to order of admission in First Appeal No.1653/2023 and issuing Notice both in this First Appeal and the Civil Application No.1 of 2023. Thereafter, the matter has been adjourned from time to time, ultimately, when the claimants moved an Execution Petition being LAR Petition No.3/23 before the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tapi at Vyara. Thereafter, the matter has been adjourned from time to time, ultimately, when the claimants moved an Execution Petition being LAR Petition No.3/23 before the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tapi at Vyara. The Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tapi at Vyara passed an order on 23-05-2025, the operative order being as under: “As acquiring body has failed to pay any amount towards amount awarded by reference court under section 18 of LAND ACQUISITION ACT , 1894; warrant in Form No.: 8 contained in Appendix-E of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 be issued in favour of process server of Civil Court, Songadh through Principal Civil Judge, Songadh, with directions to execute it in accordance with law and report compliance immediately and in any case on or before 31 st May, 2025, for recovering an amount of Rs.67,48,34,981=00 [Sixty seven crores forty eight lakhs thirty four thousand nine hundred eighty one] from Respondent No.:2 and depositing amount so recovered an this court. It is made clear that the amount recovered shall be subject to final outcome of first appeals pending before Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat, Ahmedabad.” 7. This gave cause for the appellant to file Civil Application No.1 of 2025 with prayer clause mentioned in preceding paras. 8. In support of the Civil Applications by the appellant-Company, learned Senior Advocate has pleaded that the applicant has accepted the award of the Special Land Acquisition Officer and has deposited the entire amount thus awarded. 8.1 Learned Senior Advocate for the applicant has argued that the valuation arrived at by the Reference Court does not reflect consideration of relevant material but reliance on irrelevant material like considering sale instances of small parcels of land, which are not correct reflection of market price of land. 8.2 Learned Senior Advocate for the applicant has strenuously argued that while considering Stay Application against impugned judgment and award; one irrelevant consideration is extent of possession of the land in question given to the applicant and as it is main contention of the applicant that out of the entire land covered under the acquisition only part of the land; possession is handed over to the applicant, while the remaining land is still not handed over to the applicant. 8.3 Learned Senior Advocate for the applicant has provided the break- up that out of 140504 square meters (34.72 Acres) only 40,274 square meters (9.95 Acres) land is handed over to the applicant. Therefore, the applicant may not be saddled with the liability to deposit the additional compensation and other costs and interest by considering the entire parcel of land. 8.4 Learned Senior Advocate for the applicant then submitted that it was on account of the litigation resorted to by the claimant themselves in the form of Special Civil Application No.21046 of 2006 challenging the acquisition itself and various interim orders passed by this Court and the Apex Court that the possession of the entire plot of the land was not given to the applicant. This fact is proved on the basis of what is recorded in the orders passed from time to time. Learned Senior Advocate has then drawn attention to observations made in order dated 05-07-2007 in Special Civil Application No.21046 of 2005, where directions were to maintain Status-quo. Similarly to what is recorded by Apex Court in Order dated 18-07-2004 ordering maintenance of Status-quo, reference is also made to an order dated 04-04-2016 by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal No.5610/2016. 8.5 Learned Senior Advocate for the applicant then submitted that even on merits the appellant is having a good case the valuation of Rs.950/- per square meter is not based on any tangible material, but only on to a Report of District Valuation Committee. The report (Exh-141) was brought on the record by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, who has succeeded the Land Acquisition Officer, who undertook the Land Acquisition proceedings, but was not a part of the Land Acquisition proceedings. Moreover, only the report was produced, but the contents thereof cannot be said to have been proved. Hence, the basis for the Reference Court for valuation is not sufficient. 8.6 In connection with Civil Application No.1 of 2025, it is pleaded that the applicant has preferred Special Civil Application No.7332 of 2025 before this Hon’ble Court, seeking urgent relief(s) under Art. 226-227 of the Constitution against the impugned order below Exh.1 dtd. 23.05.2025 passed by the Ld. Principal Sr. Civil Judge at Vyara, passed in LAR Execution No.3/2023, whereby the Ld. 23.05.2025 passed by the Ld. Principal Sr. Civil Judge at Vyara, passed in LAR Execution No.3/2023, whereby the Ld. Executing Court without adjudicating the objections of the Applicant-Company in consonance with the provisions of Sec. 47 of CPC has entertained the execution petition filed by the Respondents Nos. 1.1-1.3 herein and further ordered to issue warrant for attachment of moveable properties of the Applicant-Company with a further directions to execute it, in accordance with law and to report compliance thereof. That, this Hon’ble Court on dtd. 28.05.2025 reserve the caption Writ Petition for orders. 8.7. From the pleadings, it appears to the Court that some development have taken place where Bailiff of the Court of Ld. Principal Sr. Civil Judge, Tapi at Vyara has carried the possession warrant. The respondent Nos.1.1 and 1.3 were present at the time of execution of possession warrant in question. It is submitted that on behalf of Applicant, their Authorized Representatives were also present at factory premises. It is submitted that the Bailiff of Court has started to attach certain properties, vehicles etc. lying in the factory premises. It is submitted that the Authorized Signatory on behalf of Applicant-Company with undertaking has handed over cheques to the total sum of Rs.2 Cr. to the Bailiff in the presence of Respondents-Claimants. The matter was posted on dtd. 31.05.2025 before the Executing Court for the purpose of reporting compliance of the impugned order dtd. 23.05.2025 passed in LAR No.3/2023. On dtd. 31.05.2025, the Bailiff has submitted his report contending attachment Panchkyash together with undertaking and photocopies of the cheques along with original cheques. On dated 31.05.2025, on behalf of Applicant further undertaking was submitted to deposit further amount of Rs.2.72 Cr. to be deposited on dtd. 03.06.2025. On dtd. 03.06.2025, the Applicant gave further cheque to the sum of Rs.2.72 Cr. before the Executing Court. It is submitted that pursuant to the deposit of said further amount of Rs.2.72 Cr., the said Execution case was posted on dated 09.06.2025. 8.8 With regards to deposits made thus far, it is submitted that the Applicant has deposited Rs.2 Cr. over and above the amount of Rs.2.72 Cr. deposited at relevant point of time. The Applicant has now deposited amount of Rs.4.72 Cr. plus Rs.2,61,33,744/- already deposited by the Applicant-Company. 8.8 With regards to deposits made thus far, it is submitted that the Applicant has deposited Rs.2 Cr. over and above the amount of Rs.2.72 Cr. deposited at relevant point of time. The Applicant has now deposited amount of Rs.4.72 Cr. plus Rs.2,61,33,744/- already deposited by the Applicant-Company. Thus, the Applicant has deposited total amount of Rs.7,33,33,744/- (Rupees Seven Crore Thirty Three Lakhs Thirty Three Thousand Seven Hundred Forty Four only) till date. 8.9 Learned Senior Advocate for the Applicant has thereafter referred to the Annexure-D to the application giving out the break down of calculation and other two calculation tables for calculation from various angles to justify this point that no further payments or deposit need to be ordered. He has also produced certain photographs demarcating the area of land, which according to the applicant is still in possession of the Respondent claimants. 9. Learned Senior Advocate for the respondent-claimants has strongly contested about the figures given in such tabular form as well as the photograph submitting that these are all not part of the record either before the Reference Court or before this Court in the Appeal and now for the first time, an issue regarding Applicant-Company not in possession of vast parcel of land is raised. 9.1 Learned Senior Advocate for the respondent-claimants has therefore taken this Court to the facts which are on the record of the case either by way of the pleadings or by way of deposition of relevant witnesses. He has drawn attention to the Land Reference Appeal, where specific averment is made about taking over of the possession by undertaking a process of panchnama, which averment has remained uncontroverted. 9.2 Learned Senior Advocate for the respondent-claimants has then taken this Court partly through the evidence on record of the Reference Court to submit that no issue was ever framed about the non-handing over of the possession nor any relevant questions were put to the witnesses of the either side to bring on record this fact of Applicant not having the possession of entire land. It is submitted that the statements made in the pending proceedings before this Court in Writ Petition cannot be treated as conclusive evidence. It is submitted that the statements made in the pending proceedings before this Court in Writ Petition cannot be treated as conclusive evidence. 9.3 On merits, it is submitted that the original claimants also have challenged the award as according to them, valuation of land @ Rs.950/- per square meter is on lower side and have claimed fair valuation at the rate of Rs.1500/- square meter and the Reference Court has given the justification for its valuation based on the valuation report. 9.4 Learned Senior Advocate for the respondent-claimants has strongly objected to the conduct of the then Special Land Acquisition Officer who was part of the District Valuation Committee, which arrived at a figure of Rs.950/- per square meter till in his award, he has given the valuation @ Rs.124/- per square meter, which is completely without justification. It is submitted that the then Special Land Acquisition Officer has not acted bonafide. 9.5 Lastly, learned Senior Advocate for the respondent-claimants has submitted that in so far as the prayer in Civil Application No.1 of 2025 is concerned, the same may not be granted as the Applicant has already filed Special Civil Application No.7332 of 2025, which is now decided by a CAV Judgment pronounced on 23-06-2025, where prayer of stay on the execution proceedings were rejected. 9.6 The Court is conscious of the fact that Order dated 23-05-2025 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tapi at Vyara in the Execution Petition being LAR Petition No.3/23. This was a subject matter of challenge in Special Civil Application No.7332 of 2025, which was decided by a CAV Judgment and pronounced on 23-06-2025. 10. In rejoinder, learned Senior Advocate for the Applicant has submitted that the petition was necessitated on account of high handed action by the Executing Court and to protect the ongoing concern from adverse consequences. Moreover, the Applicant is ready to deposit entire amount the moment the possession of the entire land is handed over to the appellant. It is also reported that on the issue of handing over of the possession of the entire land, a separate petition is also filed before this Court. 11. Having heard learned Advocates for the parties and having perused the documents on record, it appears that both the sides have made elaborate submissions, however, have restricted the hearing only to the interim Applications filed pending the Appeal. 11. Having heard learned Advocates for the parties and having perused the documents on record, it appears that both the sides have made elaborate submissions, however, have restricted the hearing only to the interim Applications filed pending the Appeal. One Application was filed along with the Appeal itself, where Court has issued Notice both in Civil Applications as well as the Appeal. Therefore, the Appeal needs to be formally admitted. The Court is conscious of the fact that the claimants have also filed an Appeal for enhancement of the compensation and the same stands admitted. Moreover, against the order of the Reference Court, the State has not filed an independent Appeal indicating that the State has accepted the award. 12. The Court may address the main contention of the appellant that as the appellant is not given the possession of the entire land, they may be permitted to deposit compensation only to the extent of the land for which, they are given possession. To substantiate this arguments, the appellant has relied upon the orders of Status-quo passed by this Court in a separate proceedings. 13. Special Civil Application No.21046 of 2005 is filed by the original Land Owner, the respondent herein challenging the very acquisition proceedings of his Block No.207 of Village-Gunsada, Taluka-Songadh, Surat, primarily on the ground that it is acquisition for private Company and not for public purpose. The interim relief was refused by a detailed judgment dated 05-03-2007. However, Status-quo was ordered to be maintained for a period of thee weeks. The private respondents herein filed Special Leave to Appeal No.5267 of 2007 against refusal to grant interim relief and the Apex Court vide order dated 18-07-2014 dismissed the Special Leave to Appeal. However, while doing so observed in its order that on 10-04-2007, while entertaining the petition granted, an order of Status-quo as on date. The Court may reproduce the order herein below: “By the impugned order, the High Court has declined the request of the petitioner to grant an interim relief. This Court while entertaining the petition by its order dated 10.04.2007 had granted an order of status quo as on that date. Even today, the said order is still in operation. Admittedly, the Special Civil Application filed by the petitioner is still pending before the High Court. This Court while entertaining the petition by its order dated 10.04.2007 had granted an order of status quo as on that date. Even today, the said order is still in operation. Admittedly, the Special Civil Application filed by the petitioner is still pending before the High Court. In that view of the matter, in our opinion, the matter requires to be decided by the High Court itself on merits. Therefore, while disposing of the special leave petition we request the High Court to dispose of the Special Civil Application No.21046 of 2005 as expeditiously as possible on merits. The status quo granted by this Court on 10.04.2007 shall enure to the benefits of the petitioner till the disposal of S.C.A. No.21046 of 2005 by the High Court. All the contentions of both the parties are kept open. Ordered accordingly.” 14. As directed by the Apex Court in Special Civil Application No.21046 of 2005 came to be disposed of by Oral Judgment dated 27-04-2015 and by a specific order in Para-28 and 29, Status-quo order was vacated, which is reproduced as under: “28. In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the respondent- authorities have not committed any illegality or impropriety warranting interference of this Court in this petition. Hence, the petition, being devoid of merits, is rejected. Rule is discharged. The order of status quo qua the land in question is vacated. 29. At this stage, learned counsel Mr. Gohil requested to extend the order of status quo for a period of four weeks in order to approach the higher forum. The dispute involved is decades old. In January 2005 the Government of Gujarat has committed, through the MoU dated 13.01.2005, to provide necessary assistance to respondent no.4-Company to expand its business in the State keeping in mind the larger interest of State and the prospect of employment generation in a tribal area.” 15. Against the aforementioned final judgment, the respondent herein again filed Special Leave to Appeal No.5610 of 2016, wherein the Apex Court vide order dated 04-04-2016 passed following order. “Upon hearing the counsel the Court made following order: Delay condoned. Issue notice. The petitioner submits that he is still in possession of the property. In view of the above submission, status quo as on today shall be maintained until further orders.” 16. “Upon hearing the counsel the Court made following order: Delay condoned. Issue notice. The petitioner submits that he is still in possession of the property. In view of the above submission, status quo as on today shall be maintained until further orders.” 16. The aforesaid Special Leave to Appeal was thus disposed of vide order dated 24-04-2023. Such a withdrawal was unconditional. 17. It appears that the withdrawal of Special Leave to Appeal was on account of the final award passed by the Reference Court vide impugned judgment and award dated 23-02-2023. On the other hand, the claimants have raised contention that in this Reference itself, specific averment is made that in Para-8 that after declaration of award, notice under Section 12(2) was reserved on 02-01-2007 and after necessary panchnama, the ‘Kabja Pavti’ (Possession receipt) was given and the other side entered possession to which, there is no rebuttal in the objection filed by the applicant-Company. 18. Even in the evidence in chief and the cross examination of the witness of the appellant-Company vide Exh-174, no reference is made to the issue of non-possession, in fact in cross examination, the questions posed and answered are to be effect that the factory plant is already put up and operational since 2007, and the construction of the plant had already commenced one year prior to the Award being declared and that for running the factory appurtenant lands are also being utilized for the ancillary function to the Main Plant activity. However, the Court may also note that along with Block No.207 (land in question) another parcel of land being Plot No.206 of same village was also claimed to be with the appellant-Company, but not the part of acquisition. 19. The Court may also consider Exh-163, the Notice under Section 12(2) of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT specifying the date as 05-01-2007 to take over the possession of the land, which is placed on record by the Land Acquisition Officer in his evidence in chief vide Exh-154 (Mark-138/14). No question was put by either side with regard to possession. 20. As a consequence of Acquisition proceedings and by virtue of Section-16 of LAND ACQUISITION ACT , after the award under Section-11, the land vests absolutely in the Government and the land owner has a right only to receive compensation. 21. No question was put by either side with regard to possession. 20. As a consequence of Acquisition proceedings and by virtue of Section-16 of LAND ACQUISITION ACT , after the award under Section-11, the land vests absolutely in the Government and the land owner has a right only to receive compensation. 21. Therefore, with regard to the issue of whether the possession of the acquired land is received by the appellant-Company is question between the State Government and the appellant, which reportedly is also a subject matter in a Writ Petition being Special Civil Application No.20116 of 2025 filed on 24-06-2025 by the appellant-Company and the entitlement to compensation as of right of the original land owner is unconnected. 22. However, with due reference to various orders passed time to time by this Court as well as the Apex Court that too on the petition initiated by the original land owner, where specific observations are made regarding the status of possession in the opinion of the Court will be relevant consideration while considering the relief prayed for in the Civil Application No.1 of 2023. 23. With regard to the valuation of land on behalf of the respondent- land owner, serious contentions are raised including the role of the then Special Land Acquisition Officer working hand in glove with the appellant-Company and awarding far lessor valuation of the land despite being part of the District Valuation Committee, whose report was placed on record and which is prior to the Award of Special Land Acquisition Officer (see Exh-141). However, the issue of valuation will have to be gone into at the stage of final hearing of the Appeal. Prima facie the valuation arrived at in the Reference Court award is based on cogent evidence and supported by necessary justification. The contention of the applicant about the contents of Exh-141 not being proved needs to be addressed at an appropriate stage. 24. The Court at the stage of hearing of Civil Application is inclined to consider the valuation of the land as is held by the Reference Court i.e. Rs.950/- per square meter. Accordingly, the figure for additional compensation at the rate of Rs.826/- (less Rs.124 already paid) would come as under: LAR No. Block No. Area in Square meters Additio nal Comp. Accordingly, the figure for additional compensation at the rate of Rs.826/- (less Rs.124 already paid) would come as under: LAR No. Block No. Area in Square meters Additio nal Comp. Awarde d per Square meter Additional Compensatio n 30% solatium 12% rise Total Basic Compensation 9% Interest from 21-04- 2005 to 20-04- 2006 15% interest from 21-04- 2006 to 19- 11-2024 Total amount with interest A B C D E F G H I J K - - - - [C x D] [E x 30%] [E x 12%] E + F + G + H [H x 9%] [H x 15%] x [6787 /365] [H + I + J] 78 of 2012 207 140504 826 11,60,56,304 3,48,16,891 1,39,26,756.48 16,47,99,952 1,48,31,996 45,96,56,413 63,92,88,361 25. Though an argument is advanced by the appellant regarding the interest component and that the appellant cannot be saddled with the liability of the interest for the period during which the respondent land owner was litigating and where the status-quo was granted preventing the appellant from enjoying the possession of land. The same is a highly disputed question of fact, for which there is no evidence on the record as on date to arrive at a definite finding about the fact regarding the “Status-quo”. 26. In the opinion of the Court, the interest of justice will be served at this stage by passing following order:- I) Stay the implementation and operation of the impugned judgment and award dated 23-02-2023 by Reference Court on the condition of depositing 50% of the awarded additional compensation and with 30% solatium, 12% price rise and the rate of interest specified in Para 5 of the impugned award. Upon such deposit being made, it will be open for the respondent claimant or land owner to withdraw the same to the extent of 50% of the sum deposited by providing appropriate security subject to the satisfaction of the Reference Court. The balance 50% be deposited in Fixed Deposit with cumulative interest to be renewed every three years till final disposal of the Appeal. The 50% amount to be deposited is inclusive of all the amount which have been deposited from time to time. II) The appellant is given time of 2 months to make such deposit with the Reference Court. 27. Civil Application (For Stay) No.1 of 2023 stands disposed of in aforesaid terms. 28. The 50% amount to be deposited is inclusive of all the amount which have been deposited from time to time. II) The appellant is given time of 2 months to make such deposit with the Reference Court. 27. Civil Application (For Stay) No.1 of 2023 stands disposed of in aforesaid terms. 28. In view of the order passed herein, no separate order is required to be passed in Civil Application (For Stay) No.1 of 2025. Accordingly, Civil Application (For Stay) No.1 of 2025 stands disposed of.