JUDGMENT : HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK, J. 1. Present appeal is filed by the appellant – original claimant under Section 54 of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT , 1894 (hereinafter be referred to as “the Act”) read with Section 96 of the Code of CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE , 1908 challenging the judgment and award dated 05.06.2008 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bharuch (hereinafter be referred to as “the Reference Court”) in Land Acquisition Reference No.204 of 1988, whereby, the Reference Court has awarded Rs.1.75 per square meter, over-and-above the amount awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer which comes Rs.2.25 per square meter. 2. For the purpose of development of Lignite Mining, the respondents herein acquired the lands of the appellant – original claimant situated at Village: Amod, Taluka: Zagadia, District: Bharuch. A notification under Section 4 of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT was issued on 11.07.1986 and declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published on 10.04.1987. An amount of Rs.1277.63ps. per Are was demanded by the appellant, but the Special Land Acquisition Officer awarded Rs.50/- per Are by passing an award dated 30.05.1987. 2.1 Being aggrieved, the appellant – original claimant, preferred the aforesaid LAR Case under Section 18 of the Act for additional compensation of Rs.1277.63ps. per Are. After service of summons, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 had filed their written statements at Exh.-8 and respondent No.3 had filed written statement at Exh.-19 contending that the reference filed by the claimant is not legal and proper and barred by law of limitation and the award passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer is legal and proper. 2.2 After considering the pleadings of both the sides, the Reference Court had framed the following issues : (1) Whether the claimant is entitled to the additional compensation as prayed? (2) If yes, what amount? (3) What order? 2.3 That, the issues were replied by the Reference Court in para-8. To prove the case, the claimant had produced following oral as well as documentary evidence : Oral Evidence : Exh.-56 deposition of Mansingbhai Narottambhai Exh.-71 deposition of Natvarlal Nandlal Shah Exh.-108 deposition of Punabhai Somabhai Prajapati (Government Registered Valuer) Documentary Evidence : Exh.-40 certified copy of judgment of LAR No.254/86 (Main) in respect of village Amod, Ta. Jhagaida, Dist. To prove the case, the claimant had produced following oral as well as documentary evidence : Oral Evidence : Exh.-56 deposition of Mansingbhai Narottambhai Exh.-71 deposition of Natvarlal Nandlal Shah Exh.-108 deposition of Punabhai Somabhai Prajapati (Government Registered Valuer) Documentary Evidence : Exh.-40 certified copy of judgment of LAR No.254/86 (Main) in respect of village Amod, Ta. Jhagaida, Dist. Bharch Exhs.-41 to 55 copies of village form no.7/12 Eshx.-60 to 63 certified copies of index-2 Exh.-73 copy of sale deed Exh.-107 copy of award of L.A.Q. No.7/2000 Exh.-109 valuation report of Chartered Engineer, Govt. Registered Valuer 2.4 The defendants had also produced following oral as well as documentary evidence : Exh.-78 deposition of Yaqubbhai Taiyabali Khushiwal Exh.-140 certified copy of judgment of LAR No.635/87 in respect of village Maljipura, Ta. Jhagadia, Dist. Bharuch 2.5 After considering the oral as well as documentary evidence led by both the sides, the judgment and award dated 05.06.2008 came to be passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bharuch, whereby, the Reference Court has awarded Rs.1.75/- per square meter, over-and-above the amount awarded by the Special Land Acquisition. This has aggrieved the appellant, has preferred the present appeal raising various grounds. 4. Heard Mr.K. M. Sheth, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Ms.Roshni Patel, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Mr.K.M. Patel, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr.Varun K. Patel, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3-Gujarat Mineral Development Corporation. 5. Mr.Sheth, learned counsel has submitted the same facts which are narrated in the memo of appeal. He has relied upon the decisions of this Court passed in respect of very village Amod, Bhuri and Maljipura of Ta. Jhagadia, Dist. Bharuch in (i) First Appeal No.1907 to 1908 of 2010 and other allied matters in LAR Case Nos.223 to 225 of 1992, (ii) First Appeal No.2580 & 2581 of 2010 in LAR No.1279 & 1280 of 1992, (iii) First Appeal No.1831 of 2010 and other allied matters in LAR No.1305 of 1992 and (iv) First Appeal No. 2269 of 2008 and allied matters in LAR No.1563 of 1992, whereby, this Court has enhanced the amount of compensation in favour of the respective claimants. Mr.Sheth, learned counsel has submitted that in view of the aforesaid decisions, the appeal deserves to be allowed and the award of compensation deserves to be enhanced. 6. As against that, Mr. Mr.Sheth, learned counsel has submitted that in view of the aforesaid decisions, the appeal deserves to be allowed and the award of compensation deserves to be enhanced. 6. As against that, Mr. Patel, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent No.3, has vehemently opposed the present appeal and submitted that the impugned judgment and award passed by the Reference Court is in consonance with the settled legal principles and no interference is required to be called for in the present appeal, however, learned senior counsel Mr. Patel is unable to controvert the decisions of this Court in respect of village Amod and other allied matters. Learned senior counsel Mr. Patel would further submit that the reference was delayed by a period of more than 2 years and for that period, the appellant-claimant would not be entitled to claim any interest. In support of his submissions, learned senior counsel Mr. Patel has referred and relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in case of Suresh Kumar vs. State of Haryana & Ors., in Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No.670 of 2020 and emphasized upon the observations made in paragraphs 10 and 13, which are reproduced hereunder : “ 10 . In Executive Engineer, Nimna Dudhna Project Selu, District Parbhani, Maharashtra v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.8, this Court held that the Body acquiring land cannot be saddled with the liability of paying interest for the period of delay in preferring the appeals. The order of the High Court, which granted interest also for five and half years’ delay, was modified to such an extent that interest shall not be payable for delay. [See also Ningappa Thotappa Angadi v. Special Land Acquisition Officer & Anr.] 13 . In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered view that the delay ought to have been condoned, since the position that the land loser had, in fact, asked for the appeal to be filed but it was not, for no fault of his, is an uncontroverted position of fact. Consequently, the appeals are allowed. The impugned judgment and orders are set aside and the matters are remanded to the High Court for consideration afresh, on all aspects, save and except delay. Such consideration is to be made, uninfluenced by the observations made hereinabove. Consequently, the appeals are allowed. The impugned judgment and orders are set aside and the matters are remanded to the High Court for consideration afresh, on all aspects, save and except delay. Such consideration is to be made, uninfluenced by the observations made hereinabove. However, for the delayed period that is being condoned, the appellant shall not be entitled to any interest. The Registry is requested to transmit a copy of this order to the learned Registrar General, High Court of Punjab and Haryana, for necessary follow up action. Because the Award from which the appeals arise is of the year 2005, the High Court is requested make an endeavour to decide the matters expeditiously.” 6.1 Learned senior counsel Mr. Patel has also referred and relied upon the recent decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in case of Ram Kishan (since deceased) through his LRS Etc. vs. State of Haryana & Ors. in Civil Appeal Nos.4772-4773 of 2023 and other allied matters, wherein, the Hon’ble Apex Court has explained the principles of de- escalation and escalation referring and relying upon the earlier decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Peerappa Hanmantha Harijan (Dead) by Legal Representatives and Others vs. State of Karnataka and Another, [2015] 10 SCC 469 , and submitted that the appellant is not entitled for the escalation price at a cumulative rate of 10% but, the appellant is entitled for 8%. 7. So far as the contention with regard to interest is concerned, learned counsel Mr. Sheth for the appellant has submitted that at the time of deciding application for condonation of delay, the respondents had not raised any contention with regard to the fact that the appellant is not entitled for interest and referred the order dated 01.03.2012 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Civil Application No.13156 of 2011 in First Appeal No.3514 of 2011 and order dated 26.08.2022 passed in Civil Application No.1658 of 2022 in First Appeal No.9755 of 2021 and submitted that appellant is entitled for interest for that period also. 8. I have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and perused the material placed on record. 8. I have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and perused the material placed on record. Considering the submissions canvassed by both the sides and considering the fact that the matter is already covered by the decision of this Court in group of First Appeal No.1907 to 1908 of 2010 and other allied matters passed in very same village Amod for the self same acquisition but, in the said decision, notification under Section 4 was issued on 02.11.1989 whereas, in the present case, notification under Section 4 was issued on 11.07.1986 i.e. there is a gap of 3 years in issuance of both the notifications, wherein, this Court after considering the relevant facts has enhanced the amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.17.04ps. per square meter. I have also considered the decision of this Court in First Appeal No.1831 of 2010 and allied matters in respect of village Bhuri arising out of the LAR No.1305 of 1992 and other references, wherein, the Special Land Acquisition Officer had awarded Rs.0.75ps., which was enhanced by the Reference Court to the tune of Rs.16.29ps., which was challenged by the respondents herein before this Court, wherein, this Court has dismissed the appeal filed by the respondent herein and confirmed the award of the Reference Court. The order of this Court was further challenged by the respondents herein before the Hon’ble Apex Court by way of preferring appeal, and ultimately, the Hon’ble Apex Court has confirmed the order passed by this Court. Now, so far as the decision referred and relied upon by the learned counsel Mr. Sheth in respect of village Maljipura is concerned, I have also gone through the decision of this Court in First Appeal No.2269 to 2272 of 2008, wherein also, this Court has confirmed the award of the Reference Court by dismissing the appeal preferred by the respondents herein. Therefore, the fact remains that there is hardly a gap of 2 or 3 years in issuance of notifications under Section 4 between the village Amod, Bhuri and Maljipura. Therefore, the fact remains that there is hardly a gap of 2 or 3 years in issuance of notifications under Section 4 between the village Amod, Bhuri and Maljipura. 8.1 In the case on hand, notification under Section 4 was issued in the year 1986, whereas, in the group of First Appeal No.1907 to 1908 of 2010 and other allied matters for the very same village Amod for the self same acquisition, the notification was issued in the year 1989 and thus, there is a gap of only three years in issuance of both the notifications. Considering the submissions canvassed by both the sides and considering the decisions of this Court as aforesaid, I am of the opinion that the impugned judgment and award passed by the Reference Court is required to be modified to the extent that the appellant is entitled to get enhancement @ Rs.13.28ps. per square meter, after considering 8% cumulative deduction and since there is difference of 3 years therefore, reduction is required to be made from Rs.17.04ps. and thus, deducting 8% cumulative for three years i.e. Rs.3.76ps. (1.36+1.25+1.15), it comes to Rs.13.28ps. (Rs.17.04 – Rs.3.76). Thus, the appellant is entitled to get additional amount of compensation of Rs.13.28ps. per square meter. 9. In the result, the appeal is hereby allowed. The appellant- claimant is entitled to get additional amount of compensation of Rs.13.28ps. per square meter. The respondent shall deposit additional amount of compensation with statutory benefits before the Reference Court within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the order. On deposit of the amount, the same shall be disbursed in favour of the claimant, through RTGS/NEFT and the bank account details shall be furnished by the counsel for the claimant to the Registry of the Reference Court, Bharuch. Other observations of the Reference Court for statutory benefits provided under the Act shall remain intact. Decree be drawn accordingly. Record and proceedings, if received be sent back to the concerned Reference Court forthwith. 10. In view of the disposal of the main First Appeal, connected Civil Application also stands disposed of.