JUDGMENT SANGEETA K. VISHEN, J. With the consent of the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, the matter is heard finally. 2. Captioned appeal is filed against the order dated 22.08.2015 passed by the learned 2 nd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Palanpur in LAR No.551/2000. The order reads thus:- “In view of the compromise pursis at exh.13, the amicable settlement and compromise have been arrived at between the parties the learned advocate for the applicant has stated that the compromise is accepted by the parties, therefore the present reference case is disposed of in terms of the compromise at exh.13. Award be drawn in terms of compromise pursis at exh.13. It is clarified that compromise exh.13 shall form part and parcel of the Award. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case the parties shall bear their own costs of this case. Pronounced in open Court today on the 22 nd day of month of August, 2015 in permanent Lok Adalat at Palanpur.” 3. As per the above referred order, the learned Judge, has recorded the compromise purshis in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties. Award has been ordered to be drawn in terms of the compromise purshis at Exh.13 which, carries the thumb impression of the appellants on one hand and the Special Land Acquisition Officer and the Executive Engineer on the other. As per the compromise purshis, the applicants, have agreed for the compensation at Rs.23.15 paisa together with the statutory benefits and was approved by the Expert Committee. Accepting the settlement purshis, the learned 2 nd Additional Senior Civil Judge, has passed an order dated 22.08.2015 drawing the award in terms of the compromise purshis at Exh.13. Being aggrieved, the appellants, have preferred the captioned appeal. 4. Mr. M.B. Parikh, learned advocate for Mr. Kartik V. Pandya, learned advocate for the appellant, at the outset submitted that the appellant no.1/1 i.e. son of the original claimant, suffers from multiple disabilities. The nature of the disability, is a blindness up to 90% and intellectual disability of brain, is 75%, therefore, the appellant no.1/1 is unable to understand and is not in a position to take any decision in his interest. It is submitted that the disability certificate is issued by the Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities, Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment, Government of India. It is submitted that the disability certificate is issued by the Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities, Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment, Government of India. Even the Gram Panchayat has issued a certificate that the appellant no.1/1 is unable to see and his vision is impaired. So far as the appellant no.1/2 who now is deceased, was illiterate and unable to read and write. Besides, the nitty-gritty of the Court proceedings were alien to her. Therefore, the compromise arrived at between the parties, cannot be said to be in furtherance of the interest of the appellants. 4.1 It is submitted that the appellants are unaware as to how the compromise is arrived at, except putting the thumb impression. Hence, aggrieved by the order dated 22.08.2015, that the captioned appeal is filed. It is submitted that in somewhat similar case, this Court, when found that the compromise was not genuine compromise and the judgment was quashed and set aside and matter was remitted to the Court below and it, considered the case on merits and now has awarded just and fair compensation. In view of the lands having been acquired by the authority, it is urged that similar approach be adopted considering the condition of the appellant no.1/1. After the demise of the appellant no.1/2, her heir has been brought on the record as appellant no.1/2/1 who, now is taking care of the appellant no.1/1. 5. Mr. Shivam Parikh, learned Assistant Government Pleader, has submitted that since the compromise is arrived at between the parties, the captioned appeal would not be maintainable and the remedy available to the appellants would be to approach the same Court, who has drawn the compromise decree. However, it is left to the Court to pass appropriate order. 6. Mr. Rutvij S. Oza, learned advocate, submitted that in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties, the appeal would not be maintainable inasmuch as, accepting the compromise, the order was passed. Mr. Rutvij S. Oza, learned advocate, has fairly stated before this Court that in the connected Land Acquisition Reference in the self-same acquisition proceedings, i.e. Reference Case Nos.548 of 2000 to 550 of 2000 and 552 of 2000 to 558 of 2000, the reference Court, has awarded additional compensation at the rate of Rs.79 per sq. meter for irrigated land and Rs.56 per sq. meter for irrigated land and Rs.56 per sq. meter for non-irrigated land together with other statutory benefits and the captioned appeal, is arising out of the Land Acquisition Reference Case No.551 of 2000. The State Government, considering the petty claims, has already accepted the judgment and no further appeal, has been preferred. It is fairly stated before this Court that it is difficult to fathom as to how the compromise has been arrived at. It is therefore, urged that as such appeal is not maintainable but if this Court deems it fit, may pass appropriate order especially carving out an exception considering the condition of the appellant nos.1/1 and the appellant no.1/2/1. 7. Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and perused the documents made available on the record. 8. Pertinently, the land of the appellants, is situated at Village Jandala, Taluka Tharad, Dist. Banaskantha and were acquired for the public purpose of construction of main canal under the Narmada Irrigation Scheme. Section 4 notification, was issued on 07.06.1997 followed by Section 6 notification on 31.07.1998. The award was declared on 18.05.2000 and compensation was awarded at the rate of Rs.3.49 for the irrigated land and Rs.2.33, for non-irrigated land. Reference application under Section 18 of the Act of 1894, was filed with the office of the Land Acquisition Officer which was thereafter, transmitted to the reference Court and was registered as Land Acquisition Reference Case No.551/2000. It is required to be noted that together with Reference Case No.551/2000, other cases were registered, namely, Reference Case Nos.548/2000 to 550/2000 and 552/2000 to 558/2000. 9. At this stage, the grievance and the issue in the captioned appeal are required to be taken note of. It is not clear as to how the application came to be filed on 22.04.2015 by the learned advocate, which carried the thumb impression of appellant nos.1/1 and 1/2 agreeing for the settlement with the Land Acquisition Officer and the Executive Engineer. Meagre amount of Rs.23.15 as compensation was agreed together with the statutory benefits. Accepting the purshis, the order dated 22.08.2015 came to be passed in the Lok Adalat and award was ordered to be drawn in terms of the compromise purshis, Exh.13, which is subject matter of challenge in the captioned appeal. 10. Pertinently, the appeal was filed in the year 2019 and is pending. Accepting the purshis, the order dated 22.08.2015 came to be passed in the Lok Adalat and award was ordered to be drawn in terms of the compromise purshis, Exh.13, which is subject matter of challenge in the captioned appeal. 10. Pertinently, the appeal was filed in the year 2019 and is pending. This Court, otherwise would not have entertained the appeal in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties and relegated the appellants to approach the Court, who recorded the compromise purshis, but for two undisputed reasons, namely, (i) the condition of the appellants (ii) decision of the reference Court vide common judgment dated 24.06.2016 in other connected Land Acquisition Reference cases for the self-same acquisition. The amount of compensation has been enhanced by Rs.79 per sq. mtr. for irrigated land and Rs.56 for non-irrigated land. The copy of the judgment dated 24.06.2016 is placed on record. Following issues were formulated and were answered accordingly. “(1) Whether the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer for the land acquired is not fair and inadequate? (2) What amount of additional compensation, if any, the claimants are entitled? (3) Whether this land acquisition reference is barred by the limitation? (4) What award?” 11. Relevant paragraphs 21 to 25 and 30 of the judgment dated 24.06.2016 are reproduced hereinbelow:- “(21) The applicants have mainly relied upon the judgment in Land Acquisition Reference no. 449/2000 in respect of acquisition of lands of village Nagala, Tal. Tharad which were acquired for public purpose of construction of Main Canal under Narmada Irrigation Scheme. The notification under S. 4 of the Act came to be published in Government Gazette on 26.09.97. The Special Land Acquisition Officer had awarded compensation for the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 3.25 per sqomt as against the claim made by the claimants together with statutory benefits. under the Act. The reference court on appreciation and evaluation of the evidence determined additional compensation at the rate of Rs. 82.80 ps per sq. mt. The applicants have produced letter of Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Ltd, wherein the judgment and order of reference court is stated to have been accepted by the opponents. The Special Land Acquisition Officer had awarded compensation for the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 3.25 ps per sq. mt.as against the claim made by the claimants together with statutory benefits under the Act. The Special Land Acquisition Officer had awarded compensation for the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 3.25 ps per sq. mt.as against the claim made by the claimants together with statutory benefits under the Act. The applicants therein were awarded Rs. 82.80 ps. per sq. mt. for the land acquired by the reference court. The reference court had also ordered interest at the rate of 9% from the date of possession for the first year and at the rate of 15% for the subsequent period till realisation. The said judgment of the reference court is duly accepted on behalf of the opponents. (22) In the reference cases on hand, the lands that are acquired are of village Jandla, Tal. Tharad and according to the deposition of the applicant the village Nagala is lying nearby village Jandla. The opponent has also admitted in his cross-examination that the village margine of village Jandla and Nagla are in common. In view of the above, it is clear that the lands of the applicants as well as those acquired under the previous award for the purpose of Narmada Main Canal under Narmada Irrigation scheme are lying in adjoining villages and are lying within Tal. Tharad. Hence, it will be proper to follow the judgment produced at Exh. 46 for the purpose of assessing compensation. The enhanced compensation awarded under the said judgment is Rs. 82.80/- per sq.mt. for the land acquired. (23) In view of the judgment produced by the applicants, the judgment in Land Acquisition Reference no. 449 of 2000 in respect of the lands of the adjoining village can be considered as a guide for assessing the enhanced compensation. The Special Land Acquisition Officer had awarded compensation for the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 3.25 per sq.mt. as against the claim made by the claimants together with statutory benefits under the Act. The reference Court therein had awarded Rs. 82.80 ps. per sq.mt. instead of Rs. 3.25 ps. Per sq.mt. for the lands acquired. In the reference cases on hand, the Special Land Acquisition Officer has awarded compensation for the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 3.49 / - per sq.mt for irrigated land and Rs. 2.33 ps. Per sq.mt. for non-irrigated land as against the claim made by the claimants together with statutory benefits under the Act in the award dated 18.05.2000. In the reference cases on hand, the Special Land Acquisition Officer has awarded compensation for the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 3.49 / - per sq.mt for irrigated land and Rs. 2.33 ps. Per sq.mt. for non-irrigated land as against the claim made by the claimants together with statutory benefits under the Act in the award dated 18.05.2000. The judgment in Land Acquisition reference no. 449 of 2000 refers to acquisition of lands of the adjoining village Nagala Tal. Tharad acquired for the same public purpose. Under the circumstances, the compensation awarded to the applicants is inadequate. (24) The notification under S.4 issued in respect of acquisition of lands thereunder refers to the same year during which the lands of the applicants were acquired. In view of the previous award, the additional compensation can be assessed at the same rate which comes to Rs 82.80/- per sq.mt and deducting the amount of Rs. 3.49 ps. awarded to the applicants, the additional compensation can be fixed as Rs. 79 /- per Are for irrigated (Jirayat) land and the compensation in respect of non-irrigated land can be assessed at a value 25% less than that awarded for irrigated land. Likewise, the additional compensation for non irrigated land would be Rs. 59/- per sq.mt. and deducting the amount of Rs. 2.33 ps. Awarded to the applicants the additional compensation can be fixed as Rs. 56 /- per sq.mt. The applicants are entitled to compensation and other statutory benefits as per this assessment of price-rise of the lands. (25) In view of the above discussion, considering the evidence placed on record and the relevant submissions, I answer the Issue no. 1 in the affirmative. (30) The notification under S.4 issued in respect of acquisition of lands thereunder refers to the same year during which the lands of the applicants were acquired. In view of the previous award, the additional compensation can be assessed at the same rate which comes to Rs. 82.8 /- per sq.mt and deducting the amount of Rs. 3.49 ps.per sq.mt awarded to the applicants, the additional compensation can be fixed as Rs.79 /- per sq.mt for irrigated (Jirayat) land and the compensation in respect of non-irrigated land can be assessed at a value 25% less than that awarded for irrigated land. Likewise, the additional compensation for non-irrigated land would be Rs. 3.49 ps.per sq.mt awarded to the applicants, the additional compensation can be fixed as Rs.79 /- per sq.mt for irrigated (Jirayat) land and the compensation in respect of non-irrigated land can be assessed at a value 25% less than that awarded for irrigated land. Likewise, the additional compensation for non-irrigated land would be Rs. 59 /-per sq.mt and deducting the amount of Rs. 2.33 ps. Awarded to the applicants the additional compensation can be fixed as Rs. 56/- per sq.mt. The applicants are entitled to compensation and other statutory benefits as per this assessment of price-rise of the lands. In the result, I pass the following order. ORDER The reference application of the applicants under S.18 of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT , 1894 are hereby partly allowed with proportionate costs. The opponents are hereby ordered to pay compensation at the rate of Rs. 79/-per sq.mt for irrigated (Jirayat) land as well as Rs. 56/- per sq.mt for non-irrigated land to the applicants in addition to the compensation awarded. The opponents are hereby ordered to pay interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of notification i.e. 07.06.97 till the date of award i.e. 18.05.2000 on the additional amount of compensation in accordance with provisions of S.23 (1-A) of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT , 1894. The opponents are hereby ordered to pay an amount as 30% solatium on the additional market value in accordance with the provisions of S.23(2) of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT , 1894. The opponents are ordered to pay interest on the additional amount of compensation at the rate of 98 from the date of possession for the first year and at the rate of 15% p.a. for the subsequent period till realisation in accordance with S.28 of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT , 1894. The office is directed to prepare a schedule of the statutory benefits available to the applicants by virtue of this order which shall be treated as a part of this judgment. Award be drawn accordingly. The original order be kept in Main Land Acquisition Reference No. 548/2000 and a copy thereof be place with the record of Land Acquisition Reference No. 549/ 2000 to 550/2000 & 552/2000 to 558/2000.” 12. Award be drawn accordingly. The original order be kept in Main Land Acquisition Reference No. 548/2000 and a copy thereof be place with the record of Land Acquisition Reference No. 549/ 2000 to 550/2000 & 552/2000 to 558/2000.” 12. Notably, the State Government, in its Narmada, Water Resources, Water Supply & Kalpsar Department, has taken a decision not to file an appeal and to accept the judgment dated 24.06.2016 passed in the Land Acquisition Reference Case Nos.548 of 2000 to 550 of 2000 and 552 of 2000 to 558 of 2000. Therefore, the issue as regards determination of compensation is put at rest. When the precious lands are acquired permanently of the appellant no.1/1, who suffers from almost 100% disability and appellant no.1/2, who was illiterate, it was the bounden duty of the authorities to see that they are justly compensated. Thus, this Court, does not find any reason to disallow the lesser compensation to the appellants. Moreover, remitting the matter back and requiring the appellant to undertake the procedure, would be too harsh, technical and time consuming. 13. Depriving the appellant of the fruits of the compensation of the land which was acquired in year 1997 would not be in the right earnest and hence, to give a quietus, the appeal, is hereby decided and allowed especially in view of the judgment of the reference Court dated 24.06.2016 passed in group of similarly situated land acquisition matters. Hence, this Court, is of the opinion that the judgment in the case of Reference Case Nos.548/2000 to 550/2000 and 552/2000 to 558/2000, applies also to the left out Land Acquisition Reference Case No.551/2000 of the claimants – appellant nos.1/1 and 1/2/1. The aspect is fairly accepted by the learned advocates appearing for the respondents. 14. In view of the above and in the peculiar facts of the case, the captioned appeal, is allowed. The order dated 22.08.2015 is hereby quashed and set aside. Without treating it as a precedent, the respondents, are directed to pay the compensation to the appellant nos.1/1 and 1/2/1 as per the judgment dated 24.06.2016 in following terms: (a) The respondents are hereby ordered to pay compensation at the rate of Rs. 79/-per sq.mt for irrigated (Jirayat) land as well as Rs. 56/- per sq.mt for non-irrigated land to the appellants in addition to the compensation awarded. 79/-per sq.mt for irrigated (Jirayat) land as well as Rs. 56/- per sq.mt for non-irrigated land to the appellants in addition to the compensation awarded. (b) The respondents are hereby ordered to pay interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of notification, i.e. 07.06.97 till the date of award, i.e. 18.05.2000 on the additional amount of compensation in accordance with provisions of S.23 (1-A) of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT , 1894. (c) The respondents are hereby ordered to pay an amount as 30% solatium on the additional market value in accordance with the provisions of S.23(2) of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT , 1894. (d) The respondents shall pay interest on the additional amount of compensation at the rate of 9% from the date of passing of the present order for the first year and at the rate of 15% for the subsequent period till realization. 15. As the appellants have been paid the compensation at the rate of Rs.23.15 paisa together with the statutory benefits, the respondents, shall pay the differential amount together with the statutory benefits within a period of 4 months from the date of receipt of the order. 16. Needless to state that the enhanced amount of compensation shall go in favour of the appellant nos.1/1 and 1/2/1 in equal proportion. The share of the appellant no.1/1, shall be invested in the name of appellant no.1/2/1 – Dineshbhai Purabhai Chaudhari in the Fixed Deposit Receipt in any nationalised bank for a period of five years and to be extended from time to time till the lifetime of appellant no.1/1 – Patel Vaghabhai Bhikhabhai. It is clarified that appellant no.1/2/1 shall not take any loan or finances against the said Fixed Deposit Receipt. The quarterly interest accrued on the said Fixed Deposit Receipt, shall be disbursed in favour of the appellant no.1/2/1 – Dineshbhai Purabhai Chaudhari to be utilised for the upkeep and medical expenses of the appellant no.1/1 – Patel Vaghabhai Bhikhabhai. In case of medical emergency, if any amount is needed towards the treatment, liberty is reserved to the appellant no.1/2/1 to approach the Reference Court concerned, seeking permission for withdrawal of the amount. 17. The appellant no.1/2/1 has remained present before this Court. In case of medical emergency, if any amount is needed towards the treatment, liberty is reserved to the appellant no.1/2/1 to approach the Reference Court concerned, seeking permission for withdrawal of the amount. 17. The appellant no.1/2/1 has remained present before this Court. The order and the contents, were explained to him in vernacular and has agreed that he would abide by the conditions of the disbursement and the amount to be spent towards the betterment of appellant no.1/1. This Court, deems it appropriate to direct let the Secretary, District Legal Service Authority, Banaskantha and/or any officer deputed by him to visit the appellants every three months and shall submit a report to the Registrar, High Court of Gujarat. If at any point of time, it is found that the amount is not spent for the benefit of the appellant no.1/1 and is misutilized, the matter shall be placed before the Court for appropriate orders. 18. In light of the above discussion, First Appeal is partly allowed. No order as to costs. Connected Civil Application, if any, stands disposed of.