ORDER : 1. The present note for speaking to minutes has been filed praying for following two corrections in the common oral judgment dated 23.12.2024: “1. In the last line of para 25 of the judgment, in place of word “interest” the words/line “benefits of increase in the market value under Section 23(1-A), solatium under Sec. 23(2)and interest under Section 28 of the Act” be substituted. 2. At the end of para 25 following lines be added. The amount lying in the fix deposits be disbursed in favour of the claimants after necessary verification. The differential amount shall be deposited within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the order of this Court.” 2. Ms Kruti M. Shah and Mr Tushar L. Sheth, learned advocates submitted that in connection with paragraph 25 of the judgment, this Court may kindly observe that the claimants would be entitled for other statutory benefits as awarded by the Reference Court for the differential amount under section 23(1-A), 23(2) and interest under section 28 of the Act. Besides, the claimants have also prayed for disbursement of the amount lying in the fixed deposit in their favour, coupled with further direction to the respondent to deposit the differential amount within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of order of this Court. 3. Mr Krutik Parikh, learned Assistant Government Pleader has also urged that there is minor correction in the name of learned Assistant Government Pleader in the title of the judgment. It is urged that instead of Mr Krutik Pandya, same be shown as Mr Krutik Parikh. 4. Instead of Mr Krutik Pandya the name be reflected as Mr Krutik Parikh, learned Assistant Government Pleader in the title of the common oral judgment. 5. In view of the above, in paragraph 25 of the common oral judgment dated 23.12.2024, before “No order as to costs” following paragraph be added: “Other statutory benefits on the differential amount under the provisions of sections 23(1-A), 23 and interest under section 28 of the Act, shall also be paid. The differential amount shall be deposited within a period of 16 weeks’ from the date of receipt of copy of the order of this Court. The amount lying in the fixed deposit shall be allowed to be withdrawn by the claimants after due and proper verification.” 6. The differential amount shall be deposited within a period of 16 weeks’ from the date of receipt of copy of the order of this Court. The amount lying in the fixed deposit shall be allowed to be withdrawn by the claimants after due and proper verification.” 6. Rest of the order shall remain as it is. Fresh writ be issued accordingly. Note stands disposed of. JUDGMENT : SANGEETA K. VISHEN, J. 1. Since the issues involved in the captioned group of appeals and the Cross-Objections are common, all the matters are heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment. Captioned appeals are directed against the judgment dated 23.03.2011 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Junagadh in Land Reference Case No.1741 of 1999 and other allied matters whereby, the reference filed by the claimants came to be partly allowed. 2. Briefly stated are the facts: 2.1 Land acquisition proceedings were initiated for the purpose of Ozat - II Irrigation Scheme of village Mevasa, taluka Junagadh. Section 4 Notification under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1894’) was published on 24.06.1993, followed by section 6 Notification on 18.03.1994. The Land Acquisition Officer, has given its award dated 17.05.1996 whereby, the market value determined was Rs.500/- per Are for Bagayat land, Rs.400/- per Are for Jirayat land and Re.1/- per Are was determined for the waste land. 2.2 Being aggrieved the claimants, had filed the Reference under section 18 of the Act of 1984 before the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Junagadh who, after treating the Land Reference Case no.1741 of 1999 as the lead matter, vide judgment and award dated 23.03.2011, has determined additional market value at Rs.41.60/- per sq. mtr. for Bagayat land and Rs.33.28/- per sq. mtr. for Jirayat land. Being aggrieved that the appellants, i.e. State of Gujarat and the Executive Engineer, have preferred the captioned appeals whereas, claimants have preferred Cross-Objections on the ground of insufficiency of compensation. 3. Mr Krutik Parikh, learned Assistant Government Pleader, has submitted that the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, was in a right earnest inasmuch as, the Land Acquisition Officer, has determined and awarded fair market value. 3. Mr Krutik Parikh, learned Assistant Government Pleader, has submitted that the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, was in a right earnest inasmuch as, the Land Acquisition Officer, has determined and awarded fair market value. Besides, various aspects, i.e. fertility, location and the prevailing market value, were considered and hence, no error can be said to have been committed by the Land Acquisition Officer, which suggestion ought to have been accepted by the learned Judge while determining the market value and in absence of any error committed, the learned Judge ought not to have awarded additional compensation at the rate of Rs.41.60/- per Are for irrigated land and Rs.33.28/- per Are for non-irrigated land. 3.1 It is submitted that evidence which was produced was not sufficient for the learned Judge to have determined the market value at the higher rate. Against all the land reference cases, deposition of only one claimant viz. Popatbhai Haribhai was recorded at Exh.25; who happened to be the Power of Attorney holder of the claimant of Land Reference Case No.1741 of 1999. From the evidence, it clearly comes out that he had no knowledge about the nature of cultivation being carried out by other villagers. Also he had no personal knowledge about the fertility, location and nature of crops standing on the land. It is further submitted that the claimant, i.e. Exh.25 could not have given deposition on behalf of other claimants. There is no evidence, indeed, to substantiate that the market value determined by the Land Acquisition Officer, was insufficient and that determined by learned Judge, was correct. 3.2 It is submitted that it is by now well settled that the Power of Attorney holder, cannot depose for the principal in respect of matters of which the principal alone can have personal knowledge and in respect of which principal is entitled to be cross-examined. It is also by now well settled that failure of the principal to appear in the witness-box will be considered to raise an adverse inference against him. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani & Others vs. Indusind Bank Ltd., (2005) 2 SCC 217 . It is submitted that the principle has been reiterated recently by the Apex Court in the case of Mohinder Kaur vs. Sant Paul Singh rendered in Civil Appeal No. 2869/2870 of 2010. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani & Others vs. Indusind Bank Ltd., (2005) 2 SCC 217 . It is submitted that the principle has been reiterated recently by the Apex Court in the case of Mohinder Kaur vs. Sant Paul Singh rendered in Civil Appeal No. 2869/2870 of 2010. Therefore, the deposition at Exh.25 of Popatbhai Haribhai, could not have been considered, as it was on behalf of the principal and the agent had no personal knowledge of the land of the principal. At the most, his deposition can be considered only qua his parcel of land. 3.3 Reliance is also placed on the judgment in the case of Collector of Panchmahals vs. Desai Keshavlal Panalal, AIR 1969 Guj 276 wherein, it has been held and observed that the reference made under section 18 of the Act of 1894 is akin to judicial proceedings. It has been held and observed that the proceedings before the Court starts afresh and it is on the evidence produced before it that it has to arrive at his own judicial finding and to pass an award under the provisions of the Act of 1894. Therefore, when the reference is filed before the Court below, it is incumbent upon the claimants to lead independent evidence and prove the market value. Respective claimants shall have to provide the evidence with respect to their own lands and cannot rely upon the evidence led by one claimant. 3.4 While adverting to the aspect of treating the land as irrigated and non-irrigated land, Mr Krutik Parikh, learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that there is no evidence led to substantiate that the lands which have been treated as non- irrigated lands are irrigated lands. While fairly conceding, it is submitted that out of 9 cases, in 3 cases, the lands have been classified as non-irrigated land; however, as per the record available, the lands may be treated as irrigated lands. The resistance, is only qua remaining 6 cases i.e. lands bearing survey no.66 paiki, survey no.70 paiki, survey no.88, survey no.107 and survey no.115/2. There is no evidence produced to suggest that the lands are irrigated lands. On the contrary, the evidence which is available on record suggests that the lands were non-irrigated lands. The resistance, is only qua remaining 6 cases i.e. lands bearing survey no.66 paiki, survey no.70 paiki, survey no.88, survey no.107 and survey no.115/2. There is no evidence produced to suggest that the lands are irrigated lands. On the contrary, the evidence which is available on record suggests that the lands were non-irrigated lands. It is submitted that Para 104 of the Land Acquisition Manual – Exh.48, suggests the non-availability of equipments on the land in question. There was neither any well nor any cultivation is reflected. It is submitted that if the evidence, Exh.48 is read with other evidence, the lands, have been rightly classified as non-irrigated lands. 3.5 It is submitted that the claimants have not produced any revenue record to substantiate their contention that the lands are irrigated land. Even the 7/12 forms produced are subsequent to the date of issuance of notification under section 4 of the Act of 1894 and hence, the evidence cannot be considered for classifying the nature of lands. It is further submitted that evidence at Exh.29, i.e. deposition of Vallabhdas Jamnadas, Secretary of Marketing Yard, witness in Land Reference Case no.1323 of 1999, as well as evidence - Exh.30, i.e. deposition of Mansukhbhai Patel, the then Deputy Director of Market Yard, do not prove about the potentiality of the lands in question. The claimants could have produced the documents; however, they have failed to do so. Reliance on village form no.6, Exh.36, is neither here nor there inasmuch as, it does not say about the category of the lands except reflecting the history of the transaction undertaken. At the most, what can be culled out is the aspect of mortgage of the land with piyat mandli. As against this, the evidence produced by the appellants, is the deposition of the Collector. It could not have been disregarded only on the ground that he had no personal knowledge. The officers working with the department may come and go, but their deposition is always based on the information gathered by them on the basis of the documents available with the officer. The Land Acquisition Officer has considered the documents, so also the sale-deeds available, and on the basis whereof, has determined the correct market value. The officers working with the department may come and go, but their deposition is always based on the information gathered by them on the basis of the documents available with the officer. The Land Acquisition Officer has considered the documents, so also the sale-deeds available, and on the basis whereof, has determined the correct market value. Similarly, the Land Acquisition Manual is also an important piece of evidence which indicates the nature of land being irrigated and non- irrigated land; prepared on the basis of the information madeavailable by the Surveyor. The Surveyor, receives the details on the basis of documents available with the office of revenue authorities. Hence, when there is a public document in place, it could not have been doubted and ought to have been considered as a material piece of evidence. 3.6 Reliance is placed on the judgment in the case of State of Gujarat vs. Girdharbhai Premjibhai rendered in First Appeal No. 683 of 2014. It is submitted that for the land of the same village, the Reference Court had determined the market value of Rs.50.21 per sq. mtr. for irrigated land and Rs.40.16 per sq. mtr. for non-irrigated land and this Court, has been pleased to reduce the same and the market value was determined at Rs.40/- per sq. mtr. for irrigated land, treating all lands as irrigated. Similarly, in the case of State of Gujarat vs. Legal heirs of decd. Girdharbhai Premjibhai rendered in First Appeal No. 2945 of 2014, the amount fixed, has been Rs.40/- per sq. mtr. for the irrigated land and non-irrigated land, was also directed to be treated as irrigated land. It is therefore urged that appeal be accepted. 3.7 Per contra, Mr Tushar L. Sheth, learned Advocate for the claimants has placed heavy reliance on the judgment in the case of State of Gujarat vs. Batuklal Shivram & Ors. rendered in First Appeal Nos. 990 of 2011 to 997 of 2011 of villages Mevasa, Bela and Badalpur wherein, the appeals filed by the State Government were not entertained and the market value of the irrigated land was finalized at Rs.40/- per sq. mtr. and non-irrigated land at Rs.35/- per sq. mtr.. rendered in First Appeal Nos. 990 of 2011 to 997 of 2011 of villages Mevasa, Bela and Badalpur wherein, the appeals filed by the State Government were not entertained and the market value of the irrigated land was finalized at Rs.40/- per sq. mtr. and non-irrigated land at Rs.35/- per sq. mtr.. It is submitted that the land involved, is also of village Mevasa and hence, it would be in the fitness of things that the market value determined in the said case by the Reference Court and confirmed by the High Court may be considered. It is submitted that the time gap between section 4 notifications in both the cases, is of two years and 10 months and hence, applying 10% appreciation every year, the market value which would be available is Rs.51.33/- (i.e. Rs.40 + 11.33 per sq. mtr.) for the irrigated land and Rs.46.33 (i.e. Rs.35 + 11.33 per sq. mtr.) for the non-irrigated land, and the same may be allowed. 4. Ms Kruti M. shah, learned advocate appearing for some of the claimants submitted that the Act of 1894, is beneficial piece of legislation, and while determining the market value, liberal approach be adopted and highest exemplar should be allowed. It is submitted that though the right to property is not a fundamental right, but is very much a constitutional right. It is submitted that even the principles laid down by the Apex Court, suggest that highest compensation should be given to the farmers, who are being deprived of the lands which, is primary source of livelihood. It is next submitted that all lands are agricultural lands and the classification by the Land Acquisition Officer merely on the basis of the report of the Talati, is erroneous as, he had no personal knowledge of the nature of the land. It is further submitted that the learned Judge has simply classified the land into irrigated and non- irrigated but, has not given any finding about the nature of the land. 4.1 Ms Kruti M. Shah and Mr Tushar L. Sheth, learned advocates for the respective claimants, have further submitted that the lands of not only village Mevasa, but also of surrounding villages viz. Sankhadavadar, Badalpur and Bela, have been acquired for the similar purpose. In the case of State of Gujarat vs. Girdharbhai Premjibhai (supra) as well as State of Gujarat vs. Legal heirs of decd. Sankhadavadar, Badalpur and Bela, have been acquired for the similar purpose. In the case of State of Gujarat vs. Girdharbhai Premjibhai (supra) as well as State of Gujarat vs. Legal heirs of decd. Girdharbhai Premjibhai (supra), this Court treated the non- irrigated lands as irrigated lands. Hence, there was no reason available to the learned Judge to treat some of the lands as non- irrigated land. It is next submitted that earlier, in the case of Deputy Collector & Land Acquisition Officer vs. Samju Naran rendered in First Appeal No. 5307 of 2001, with respect to village Badalpur, the Hon’ble Court, has determined the market value at Rs.40/- per sq. mtr. for irrigated land. Likewise, vide judgment dated 29.08.2011 in the case of State of Gujarat vs. Rameshbhai Varjang passed in First Appeal No. 5853 of 2008, the Hon’ble Division Bench, determined the market value of the irrigated land at Rs.40/- per sq. mtr. and non-irrigated land at Rs.32/- per sq. mtr. It is therefore, submitted that when clear market value is available of either the same village or surrounding villages, the appeals of the State Government, do not deserve to be entertained. 4.2 It is next submitted that so far as village Bela is concerned, First Appeal was filed together with Civil Application seeking condonation of delay. In the said case, the Reference Court has awarded the market value at Rs.46.60 per sq. mtr. for irrigated land and Rs.37.28 per sq. mtr. for non-irrigated land. Considering the quantum of delay, the Civil Application came to be rejected vide order dated 11.12.2014 and consequently, the appeal, was also dismissed. Thus, the market value determined by the Reference Court, stood crystallized as the State Government, has not challenged the said judgment before the higher forum. It is submitted that yet in another judgment, the Reference Court has determined the market value at Rs.46.60 per sq. mtr. for irrigated land and Rs.37.28 per sq. mtr. for non-irrigated land. The judgment has been rendered in the year 2010 which has been accepted by the State Government, without there being any appeal preferred before the High Court. It is submitted that section 4 notification, was dated 29.02.1992 which is only one year earlier than the notification in question. It is therefore, urged that the judgment of the Reference Court, does not deserves interference and the same be accepted. 5. It is submitted that section 4 notification, was dated 29.02.1992 which is only one year earlier than the notification in question. It is therefore, urged that the judgment of the Reference Court, does not deserves interference and the same be accepted. 5. Mr Tushar L. Sheth, learned advocate has made available the chart giving details of eight parcels of lands classified as non- irrigated. It is submitted that the classification, is erroneous inasmuch as, the lands are being cultivated by the claimants either through the help of piyat mandli or with the help of wells in the adjacent lands. It is submitted that so far as survey no.70 paiki is concerned, in the award of the Land Acquisition Officer, it clearly records the right of claimant to draw water from survey no.60. Likewise, for survey nos.107 and 115/2, as per village form no.6, entry no.435, suggests that the claimant is a member of the piyat mandli. So far as survey nos.108 and 118 are concerned, it is clear from the evidence that there are equipments in the land of the respective claimants suggesting the lands to be irrigated lands. With respect to survey no.66 paiki, it is submitted that as per village form no.7/12, the claimants have right to draw water from the wells situated in survey no.59. Similarly, village form no.16 of the year 1958-59, suggest the right of the claimants grandfather to draw water, so is the position of survey no.88. 5.1 It is further submitted that the classification by the Land Acquisition Officer, is erroneous inasmuch as, only on the basis of the report of the Survey Officer, that the details have been incorporated. The copy of the report ought to have been provided to the claimants and in absence thereof, the Land Acquisition Officer, ought not to have believed the Talati-cum-Mantri, but should have believed the version of the claimants, who have categorically stated that the lands are being cultivated either through well situated in their own lands or by drawing water from the adjacent land or they being the member, drawing water through the piyat mandli. It is submitted that the Land Acquisition Officer, has focused only on the aspect of the well; however, the same, was not the determinative factor inasmuch as, the cultivation is possible also with the aid of the well in other land or through the piyat mandli and therefore, the lands ought to have been considered as irrigated land and not the non-irrigated land. 5.2 It is submitted that the contention raised that deposition of the Power of Attorney, cannot be considered, is also misplaced inasmuch as, the witness, had the personal knowledge, he being one of the villagers. The witness could not state the kind of the crop and that by itself will not make the lands as non-irrigated land. It is submitted that in the cross examination, neither the village form no.6 nor the nature of transactions agreed between the parties, has been questioned. 5.3 Reliance is placed on the judgment in the case of Ali Mohammad Beigh & Others vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir, (2017) 4 SCC 717 . It is submitted that the issue was about the classification of the lands as irrigated and non-irrigated land. Two different sets of market value were determined and was subject matter of challenge. Considering the similarity and the location, the Apex Court held and observed that when the lands are more or less situated nearby and when the acquired lands are identical and similar and the acquisition is for the same purpose, it would not be proper to discriminate between the land owners unless there are strong reasons. The judgment in the case of Union of India vs. Bal Ram & Anr., (2010) 5 SCC 747 has been referred to, wherein, it has been held and observed that if the purpose of acquisition is same and when the lands are identical and similar, though lying in different villages, there is no justification to make any discrimination between the land owners to pay more to some of the land owners and less compensation to others. While concluding, it is submitted that the public purpose being common, i.e. acquisition of the land for the Ozat - II Irrigation Scheme, to maintain uniformity and considering the beneficial object, highest market value which has been determined, should be made applicable to the facts of the present case. 6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. While concluding, it is submitted that the public purpose being common, i.e. acquisition of the land for the Ozat - II Irrigation Scheme, to maintain uniformity and considering the beneficial object, highest market value which has been determined, should be made applicable to the facts of the present case. 6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. Perused and considered the documents made available on the record including the paper-book, so also the evidence. 7. Perceptibly, the appellants, are aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 23.03.2011 whereby, the learned Judge has awarded the additional amount of compensation of Rs.41.60 per sq. mtr. (making it total of Rs.46.60 per sq. mtr.); while, for non- irrigated land, the additional compensation awarded was Rs.33.28 per sq. mtr. (making it total of Rs.37.28/- per sq. mtr.). On the other hand, the claimants, being aggrieved by the insufficiency of the market value, have filed cross objections. Claim put forth by the claimants is that they are entitled to Rs.52/- and Rs.42.50 per sq. mtr. for Bagayat and Jirayat land respectively, in view of the judgment passed by this Court in First Appeal no.990 of 2011. Further, stand taken is that in view of the dismissal of the appeal and review application, the market value determined at Rs.40/- per sq. mtr. and Rs.35/- per sq. mtr. for irrigated and non-irrigated land respectively, stood crystallized. Considering the difference in the issuance of section 4 notification of 2 years and 10 months, 10% increase may be allowed. It is therefore, urged that the claimants, would be entitled for Rs.52/- per sq. mtr. (i.e. Rs.40 + Rs.11.33 appreciation towards two years and 10 months). It is also the claim of the claimants that the non-irrigated land, in absence of any evidence to the contrary, be treated as irrigated land and uniform market value of Rs.52/- per sq. mtr. may be applied to all the lands of village Mevasa. 8. In view of the above background, the issues which arise for the consideration of this Court are that what would be the correct market value of the lands acquired and as to whether the learned Judge has committed any error in determining the additional compensation at Rs.41.60 per sq. mtr. for irrigated land. Also, whether all the lands acquired should be treated as irrigated lands in absence of any evidence to the contrary. 9. mtr. for irrigated land. Also, whether all the lands acquired should be treated as irrigated lands in absence of any evidence to the contrary. 9. Pertinently, the land in question of village Mevasa has been acquired for the public purpose of Ozat-II Irrigation Scheme. Section 4 notification was issued on 24.06.1993, followed by Section 6 notification dated 18.03.1994, further followed by the award on 17.05.1996 whereby, the Land Acquisition Officer has determined Rs.500/- per Are for Bagayat land and Rs.400/- per Are for Jirayat land; while Re.1/- per Are was determined for the waste land. As stated hereinabove, being aggrieved that the claimants had filed reference under section 18 of the Act of 1894 and Land Reference Case no.1741 of 1999 was treated as lead reference case and accordingly evidence has been led by the respective parties in the said Land Reference Case. Vide judgment dated 23.03.2011, additional compensation of Rs.41.60/- per sq. mtr. for Bagayat land and Rs.33.28/- per sq. mtr. for Jirayat land was awarded. 10. Claimants, in support of their claim of Rs.8,000/- per Are, had led evidence, namely, Exh.25 - deposition of Popatbhai Harjibhai, Power of Attorney of claimant of Land Reference Case no.1741 of 1999; Exh.26 – copy of the judgment in the case of Land Reference Case no.1323 of 1999 dated 30.09.2004; and Exh. 28 – copy of the judgment in the case of Land Reference Case no.1569 of 1999 dated 27.04.2001. Further evidence in the form of deposition has been produced, namely, Exhs.29, 30, i.e. the deposition of Secretary ofMarketing Yard, witness in Land Reference Case no.1323 of 1999 and Mansukhbhai Patel, Deputy Director of Agriculture, witness in Land Reference Case no.1323 of 1999. Further evidence Exhs.31 to 36 have been placed on record, namely, the copies of the communication exchanged between the Superintending Engineer & Executive Engineer, Irrigation Scheme for payment of compensation; the Rojkam; copy of the price list issued by the Agricultural Produce Market Committee. Also, the copy of letter dated 28.11.1994 by Executive Engineer to the Agricultural Officer, assessing the standing crop and the copy of the village form no.6. Also, the copy of letter dated 28.11.1994 by Executive Engineer to the Agricultural Officer, assessing the standing crop and the copy of the village form no.6. As against this, the evidence led by the Land Acquisition Officer, was Exh.47, i.e. affidavit and deposition of Shri Bachusinh Virjibhai Kotad, Land Acquisition Officer; Exh.48 – copy of para 104 of the Land Acquisition Manual; Exh.49 – copy of the award in Land Acquisition Case no.55 of 1990; copy of the amended Act; Exhs.53 and 54 – copies of the sale-deeds of the year 1987 of survey nos.61 paiki and 90 respectively. 11. Considering the above-referred evidence, the learned Judge, in paragraphs 14 and 15, has given its reasons and has adopted the market value determined in Land Reference Case no.1323 of 1999 and was of the further opinion that the previous award of the Courts in respect of similar and adjoining lands, which has become final, can be taken into consideration for the purpose of ascertaining the market value. Notably, in the Land Reference Case no.1323 of 1999, market value determined was Rs.46.60 per sq. mtr. and Rs.37.28 per sq. mtr. for irrigated and non-irrigated land respectively. In the First Appeal no.3901 of 2008 and other allied matters being filed, the market value has been reduced to Rs.28/- per sq. mtr. for irrigated land and Rs.22/- per sq. mtr. for non-irrigated land. Special Leave Petition against the said judgment, is pending before the Apex Court. 12. Concededly, various parcels of lands of villages Sakhadavadar, Badalpur, Bela and Mevasa have been acquired for the purpose of Ozat-II Irrigation Scheme. It is also not in dispute that said villages share common boundaries. In one of the acquisition of very same village in the case of State of Gujarat vs. Girdharbhai Premjibhai (supra), section 4 notification was issued on 28.09.1993 wherein, the market value determined for irrigated land was Rs.50.20 per sq. mtr. and non-irrigated land was Rs.40.16 per sq. mtr. In the appeal, it came to be reduced to Rs.40/- per sq. mtr. and non-irrigated lands were treated as irrigated lands. So was the case with respect to another acquisition of the very same village in the case of State of Gujarat vs. Legal heirs of decd. Girdharbhai Premjibhai (supra), section 4 notification was issued on 24.06.1993 wherein, this Court, in appeal has reduced the market value from Rs.45.21 per sq. mtr. mtr. and non-irrigated lands were treated as irrigated lands. So was the case with respect to another acquisition of the very same village in the case of State of Gujarat vs. Legal heirs of decd. Girdharbhai Premjibhai (supra), section 4 notification was issued on 24.06.1993 wherein, this Court, in appeal has reduced the market value from Rs.45.21 per sq. mtr. to Rs.40/- per sq mtr. for irrigated land and non-irrigated lands, were considered as irrigated lands on the ground that there was no evidence available to prove the contrary. 13. At this stage, it would also be important to consider some of the judgments passed by this Court with respect to villages Mevasa, Bela and Badalpur with respect to self-same acquisition. In one of the cases, i.e. First Appeal no.990 of 2011 and other allied matters in the case of State of Gujarat vs. Batuklal Shivram & Ors., filed by the State, came to be rejected and the market value for irrigated land at Rs.40/- per sq. mtr. and for non-irrigated at Rs.35/- per sq. mtr. stood crystalized. Acquisition of lands were of three villages viz. Mevasa, Bela and Badalpur and all the three village, undisputedly, share the boundaries. It has been contended by learned advocate for the claimants that the said market value, may be taken as a base and considering the time gap of 2 years and 10 months between issuance of section 4 notifications, 10% appreciation may be awarded and that is how, the claim is made for Rs.51.33 per sq.mtr. for irrigated lands. 14. Likewise, order is passed by this Court in Civil Application no.10148 of 2014 with respect to village Bela wherein, section 4 notification was dated 11.03.1992 for the self-same acquisition. The market value determined for irrigated land was Rs.46.60 per sq. mtr. and for non-irrigated land was Rs.37.28 per sq. mtr. Hence, in this case also, the market value stands crystalised. So is the position with Land Reference Case no.1577 of 1999, where lands acquired, was of village Mevasa itself. Section 4 notification is dated 29.02.1992. Pertinently, the market value determined for irrigated land is Rs.46.60 and for non-irrigated land is 37.28 per sq. mtr. and the judgment of the Reference Court, has been accepted by the State Government with no appeal before the higher forum. Section 4 notification is dated 29.02.1992. Pertinently, the market value determined for irrigated land is Rs.46.60 and for non-irrigated land is 37.28 per sq. mtr. and the judgment of the Reference Court, has been accepted by the State Government with no appeal before the higher forum. Therefore, the market value of the land which is clearly available and can be accepted without any further discussion is Rs.46.60 per sq. mtr. for irrigated land and Rs.37.28 per sq. mtr. for non-irrigated land. 15. Worth referring would be, the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Mehrawal Khewaji Trust, Faridkot vs. State of Punjab, (2012) 5 SCC 432 at this stage. The principle, which has been laid down by the Apex Court is to the effect that when there are several exemplars with reference to similar lands, it is the general rule that the highest of the exemplars, if it is satisfied, that it is a bona fide transaction has to be considered and accepted. It has been held and observed that when the land is being compulsorily taken away from a person, he is entitled to the highest value which similar land in the locality is shown to have fetched in a bona fide transaction entered into between a willing purchaser and a willing seller near about the time of the acquisition. The underline principle evolved by the Apex Court is that the transactions representing the highest value should be preferred to the rest unless there are strong circumstances justifying a different course. Paragraph 17 of the said judgment, reads thus:- 17. It is clear that when there are several exemplars with reference to similar lands, it is the general rule that the highest of the exemplars, if it is satisfied, that it is a bona fide transaction has to be considered and accepted. When the land is being compulsorily taken away from a person, he is entitled to the highest value which similar land in the locality is shown to have fetched in a bona fide transaction entered into between a willing purchaser and a willing seller near about the time of the acquisition. When the land is being compulsorily taken away from a person, he is entitled to the highest value which similar land in the locality is shown to have fetched in a bona fide transaction entered into between a willing purchaser and a willing seller near about the time of the acquisition. In our view, it seems to be only fair that where sale deeds pertaining to different transactions are relied on behalf of the Government, the transaction representing the highest value should be preferred to the rest unless there are strong circumstances justifying a different course. It is not desirable to take an average of various sale deeds placed before the authority/court for fixing fair compensation.” 16. Therefore, considering the benevolent object of the Act of 1894 and when the claimants are being deprived of their valuable lands, so also the livelihood, it is but natural that the claimants deserve the highest of the compensation to be paid. 17. Yet in another decision in the case of Ali Mohammad Beigh & Others vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir (supra), the Apex Court, has held and observed that when the lands are more or less situated nearby and when the acquired lands are identical and similar and the acquisition is for the same purpose, it would not be proper to discriminate between the land owners unless there are strong reasons. Referring to the judgment of Union of India vs. Bal Ram (supra), it has been held that if the purpose of acquisition is same and when the lands are identical and similar though lying in different villages, there is no justification to make any discrimination between the land owners to pay more to some of the land owners and less compensation to others. Paragraph 12 of the said judgment, reads thus: “12. When the lands are more or less situated nearby and when the acquired lands are identical and similar and the acquisition is for the same purpose, it would not be proper to discriminate between the land owners unless there are strong reasons. Paragraph 12 of the said judgment, reads thus: “12. When the lands are more or less situated nearby and when the acquired lands are identical and similar and the acquisition is for the same purpose, it would not be proper to discriminate between the land owners unless there are strong reasons. In Union of India vs. Bal Ram and Another, (2010) 5 SCC 747 , this Court held that if the purpose of acquisition is same and when the lands are identical and similar though lying in different villages, there is no justification to make any discrimination between the land owners to pay more to some of the land owners and less compensation to others. The same was the view taken in Union of India vs. Harinder Pal Singh and Others, (2005) 12 SCC 564, where this Court held as under:- “15. We have carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties and we see no justification to interfere with the decision of the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court which, in our view, took a pragmatic approach in fixing the market value of the lands forming the subject-matter of the acquisition proceedings at a uniform rate. From the sketch plan of the area in question, it appears to us that while the lands in question are situated in five different villages, they can be consolidated into one single unit with little to choose between one stretch of land and another. The entire area is in a stage of development and the different villages are capable of being developed in the same manner as the lands comprised in Kala Ghanu Pur where the market value of the acquired lands was fixed at a uniform rate of Rs 40,000 per acre. The Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court discarded the belting method of valuation having regard to the local circumstances and features and no cogent ground has been made out to interfere with the same. 16. The Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court discarded the belting method of valuation having regard to the local circumstances and features and no cogent ground has been made out to interfere with the same. 16. In our view, in the absence of any contemporaneous document, the market value of the acquired lands of Village Kala Ghanu Pur which were acquired at the same time as the lands in the other five villages was correctly taken to be a comparative unit for determination of the market value of the lands comprising the lands forming the subject-matter of the acquisition proceedings under consideration…….” 18. As discussed hereinabove in Land Reference Case no.1577 of 1999, the State has accepted the judgment of Reference Court where the market value determined is at Rs.46.60 for irrigated land and Rs.37.28 for non-irrigated land. In this behalf, apt would be judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Shivappa vs. Chief Engineer, 2023 (0) AIJEL-SC 71026 wherein it has been held and observed that if the State has accepted the award of the Reference Court in respect of some of the claimants, it cannot be permitted to adopt a different treatment to the other claimants. The State or its instrumentalities cannot be permitted to adopt an attitude of pick and choose. 19. Concededly, village Mevasa shares boundary with villages Bela and Sakhadavadar. In almost all the cases, the market value have been finalised by one or the other judgment. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, when the lands acquired are identical and similar, so also the purpose of the acquisition, there is no reason to interfere with the judgment under challenge, insofar as, the determination of the additional compensation. However, with respect to the classification of land as non-irrigated, it requires modification for the reasons as discussed hereinbelow. 20. While adverting to the aspect of classification of lands, it may be pointed out that initially, there was resistance with respect to 9 parcels of land; however, upon taking further instructions, Mr Krutik Parikh, learned Assistant Government Pleader, has fairly conceded that out of the nine parcels of land, three parcels, namely, survey no.100 paiki; survey no.108 paiki; and survey no.118 paiki, there is no objection. Hence, no further discussion is necessitated. Hence, no further discussion is necessitated. Adverting to the lands where resistance is lodged, it is clear that there are no findings recorded as to on what basis, the learned Judge has treated the lands as non-irrigated. Considering the evidence and more particularly, Exh.25, it comes out that the lands, have the potential of being cultivated and the claimants have been cultivating the same. Even there is no dispute that they were taking crops three times in a year. It is also not in dispute that in some of the cases, they have their own means of drawing water and in some of the cases, with the aid of well in the adjoining field, and the activity of cultivation, is being undertaken, which aspect is substantiated by the evidence of the claimant, Exh.25. It is sought to be argued that the claimant could not have deposed on the behalf of the principal; however, the fact remains that the said witness is also one of the claimants and whose land has been acquired. The claimant has indicated the aspect of cultivation, but what he could not state was the nature of crops grown by the other claimants. Therefore, the aspect of cultivation is clearly borne out from the deposition. Hence, the contention of the learned Assistant Government Pleader that the deposition, Exh.25, may not be considered, does not deserve acceptance and is rejected. 21. Moreover, as per the evidence – Exh.36, i.e. village form no.6, entry no.435 records of lands having been mortgaged for the purpose of availing the facilities provided by the piyat mandli. Almost all the claimants are the members of the said piyat mandli and the main objective is to provide water to the fields of the claimants for the purpose of growing crops. Nothing contrary has been proved, dislodging the aspect of cultivation. While in the evidence of the Land Acquisition Officer, Exh.47 he has expressed ignorance as to the existence of piyat mandli or the factum of claimants taking water therefrom for the purpose of cultivation. The appellant – State has produced para 104 of the Land Acquisition Manual – Exh.48, which also indicates the nature of the crop/trees available on the land of the claimants. The said manual, is prepared on the basis of the information provided by the Survey Officer. To an extent, it supports the case of the claimants. The appellant – State has produced para 104 of the Land Acquisition Manual – Exh.48, which also indicates the nature of the crop/trees available on the land of the claimants. The said manual, is prepared on the basis of the information provided by the Survey Officer. To an extent, it supports the case of the claimants. Hence, considering the evidence, Exh.25, Exh. 36, so also Exh.48, it is not in dispute that the lands are being cultivated and the claimants are growing crops. 22. Perceptibly, survey no.70 paiki, the stand taken is and which is reflected in the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer is that the claimant of survey no.70 paiki, is drawing water from survey no.60. Similarly, for survey no.107, heavy reliance is placed on entry no.435 recorded in village form no.6, clearly indicating that the claimant is member of piyat mandli and by taking help of the mandli, they are allowed to draw water for the cultivation, so is the position with respect to survey no.115/2. In the evidence of the Land Acquisition Officer, such aspect has not been questioned. Therefore, almost majority of the lands have the facilities of irrigation and therefore, it is difficult to fathom as to on what basis the lands have been classified as non-irrigated lands. Bare perusal of the judgment of the Reference Court suggest that there is not a whisper as to how the lands have been classified as non-irrigated. Mere placing reliance on the say of the opponent, was not sufficient as, it was the duty of the trial Court to have assessed the evidence, if any, and come to an independent conclusion, as the proceedings before the Court are fresh and the learned Judge has to arrive at its own independent judicial findings. 23. With respect to the very same village, heavy reliance is placed on the judgment in the case of State of Gujarat vs. Legal heirs of decd. Girdharbhai Premjibhai (supra) by the claimants. Notably, the acquisition is for the very same purpose of Ozat-II Irrigation Scheme and the village is also same. Section 4 notification is also of the same date. The Division Bench, has held that in absence of any evidence to the contrary and mere reliance on the award declared by the Special Land Acquisition Office, was impermissible. Notably, the acquisition is for the very same purpose of Ozat-II Irrigation Scheme and the village is also same. Section 4 notification is also of the same date. The Division Bench, has held that in absence of any evidence to the contrary and mere reliance on the award declared by the Special Land Acquisition Office, was impermissible. It is observed that the Reference Court, was required to give its own independent decision and findings on the basis of evidence available on record and ought not to have simply relied upon theaward declared by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. 24. Yet in another decision in the case of State of Gujarat vs. Girdharbhai Premjibhai (supra), similar view has been taken and the Cross Objections filed, have been accepted. The said judgment was also with respect to the self-same village Mevasa, District Junagadh. The public purpose is also the same, i.e. Ozat-II Irrigation Scheme with a minor difference in the date of issuance of section 4 notification. Paragraph 9.03 of the judgment, reads thus: “9.03 Now so far as Cross Objections preferred by the original claimants of Land Reference Case Nos.109/2000 to 114/2000 and 117/2000 by which with respect to the land acquired of the said Land Reference Cases are treated as non-irrigated land and the amount of compensation is awarded treating the same as non-irrigated land is concerned, it is required to be noted that as such, the Reference Court has not given any reasons on appreciation of evidence treating the said land as non-irrigated land. From the submissions made by Mr.Dhawan Jayswal, learned AGP appearing on behalf of the opponents in Cross Objections, it appears that the Reference Court has simply relied upon the award declared by the Special Land Acquisition Officer treating the aforesaid land as non-irrigated land. However, the Reference Court was required to take its own independent decision and was required to give its own independent findings on the basis of the evidence available on record and he ought not to have simply and straightway relied upon the award declared by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. However, the Reference Court was required to take its own independent decision and was required to give its own independent findings on the basis of the evidence available on record and he ought not to have simply and straightway relied upon the award declared by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. Therefore, from the evidence available on record, namely, para 104 of the Land Acquisition Manual, Exh.36, i.e. village form no.6 entry no.435, so also other evidence, lands of village Mevasa could not have been classified as non-irrigated land inasmuch as, the irrigation activities are very much in place by adopting various methods, i.e. traditional as well as modern. Therefore, the classification of lands as non-irrigated without any discussion and finding, was an erroneous exercise by the Reference Court and to that extent, the judgment and award under challenge deserves to be modified. 25. Considering the evidence, so also the market value determined with respect to the adjoining villages, this Court, is of the opinion that the additional amount of compensation of Rs.41.60 per sq. mtr. (making it total of Rs.46.60 per sq. mtr.) is the correct market value of the irrigated lands. In view of the above discussion, the First Appeals preferred by the State Government, are hereby dismissed; whereas, the Cross Objections by the claimants are partly allowed only to an extent of treating all lands as indicated in the schedule attached to the judgment as irrigated lands and those lands, namely, survey no.66 paiki, 70 paiki, 88 paiki, 100 paiki, 107, 108, 110 paiki, 115/2, 118 shall also be entitled to additional compensation at par with irrigated lands, i.e. at the rate of Rs.41.60 per sq. mtr. The differential amount shall carry the statutory interest. No order as to costs. 26. So far as Cross-Objection no.227 of 2022 in First Appeal no.1160 of 2016 is concerned, the co-ordinate bench has passed an order declaring that the claimant shall not be entitled for interest for interregnum period, i.e. from March 2011 to August 2022. Paragraph 5 of the order dated 18.08.2022 passed in R/Civil Application no.1565 of 2022 in R/Cross Objection no.227 of 2022 reads thus: “5. Paragraph 5 of the order dated 18.08.2022 passed in R/Civil Application no.1565 of 2022 in R/Cross Objection no.227 of 2022 reads thus: “5. In absence of any affidavit and only averments set out in respect of the delay caused, it is largely the oral version of the applicant, which the learned advocate has presented before us, we would not like to further delve into the same, but the fact remains that from the year 2011 till August, 2022, no preparedness is shown on the part of the applicant. Twelve years is a long time and, therefore, the Court surely cannot burden the State so far as interest is concerned. It is being clarified that while allowing this application, out of the concern for the applicant to at least adjudication on merits, so far as aspect of interest is concerned, the same shall need to be allowed with a rider that the applicant shall not be entitled for interest of interregnum period i.e. from March, 2011 to August, 2022.” 27. Since there was a delay, same was condoned on condition that the claimant shall not be entitled for interest for the delayed period, i.e. from March 2011 to August 2022. The claimant of Cross-Objection no.227 of 2022, therefore, shall not be entitled for interest for the above-referred period. 28. In view of the order passed in First Appeals, Civil Application (for Direction) no.1 of 2024 in First Appeal no.1160 of 2026, does not survive and stands disposed of. 29. Record & proceedings of the case of Land Reference Case no.1741 of 1999 and other allied matters be sent back to the Court concerned forthwith.