JUDGMENT : SANGEETA K. VISHEN, J. 1. Captioned group of appeals, is directed against the common judgment dated 22.03.2007 (hereinafter referred to as “the impugned judgment”) passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gandhinagar in Land Acquisition Reference case nos.91 of 2005, 93 of 2005 to 96 of 2005 whereby, the reference cases, have been partly allowed. Additional compensation has been allowed to the claimants at the rate of Rs.411-00 per sq. mtr. over and above the amount of compensation already awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. 2. Since all the appeals arise out of the impugned judgment, they are being heard analogously and are disposed of by this common oral judgment. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their respective status before the Reference Court. 3. Pertinently, the lands in question are situated in the sim of village Mansa and were acquired for the purpose of Drill Site No.L.M.D.T. by the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation (hereinafter referred to as “the ONGC”). Initially, possession of the lands was taken by the acquiring body through personal negotiations sometime in the year 1997. Subsequent thereto, as the requirement continued, the Land Acquisition Officer, published notification under Section 4 of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT , 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1894”) on 21.12.1999, followed by a notification under Section 6 of the Act on 13.12.2000. The Land Acquisition Officer, determined the market value of the land at the rate of Rs.24-00 per sq. mtr. and awarded permissible statutory benefits. Since the claimants were aggrieved, preferred the Land Acquisition Reference case nos.91 of 2005, 93 of 2005 to 96 of 2005. The Reference Court, by the impugned judgment, awarded additional compensation at the rate of Rs.411-00 paisa per sq. mtr. Other statutory benefits were also awarded. Being aggrieved, the captioned appeals have been preferred against the impugned judgment. 4. Mr Ajay R. Mehta, learned advocate for the acquiring body, submitted that there is an error committed by the learned Judge in awarding additional compensation at Rs.411-00 per sq. mtr. over and above Rs.24-00 per sq. mtr. awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. It is submitted that it ought to have been appreciated that the market value determined by the Land Acquisition Officer, was after considering the sale instances which were the best available material on the record. mtr. over and above Rs.24-00 per sq. mtr. awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. It is submitted that it ought to have been appreciated that the market value determined by the Land Acquisition Officer, was after considering the sale instances which were the best available material on the record. While inviting the attention of this Court to the oral order dated 19.04.2023 passed by the coordinate Bench in R/First Appeal no.5272 of 2010, it is submitted that what weighed with the Division Bench was factors as indicated in paragraph 15, namely, (i) the notification dated 13.10.1999 in Land Acquisition Reference case no.171/174 of 2005; (ii) notification dated 14.10.1999 for which, the compensation determined was Rs.431 per sq. mtr. and it having attained finality as the ONGC, has accepted the judgment; (iii) notification dated 26.08.2004 in relation to Land Acquisition Reference case no.410 to 461 of 2006 wherein, the Apex Court, has awarded the amount of Rs.491 per sq. mtr. and (iv) the notification dated 21.12.1999 under Section 4 of the Act of 1894 and the Reference Court, has determined the amount of Rs.435 per sq. mtr. 4.1 It is further submitted that in fact, previously another Division Bench had decided the First Appeal no.4979 of 2008 and other allied matters pertaining to the lands of village Mansa. Section 4 notification was issued on 22.12.1999, that is, one day subsequent to the date of notification under Section 4 in the present case. The Division Bench after considering the evidence and the submissions advanced, determined the additional compensation at the rate of Rs.220 per sq. mtr. instead of Rs.412 per sq. mtr. as awarded by the Reference Court. It is submitted that the common oral judgment dated 22.06.2015 passed in First Appeal no.4979 of 2008 is prior in point of time and hence, the same, may be accepted. 4.2 It is submitted that as per the judgment of the Apex Court in connection with the acquisition of village Mansa, the judgment rendered in Land Acquisition Reference case no.90 of 2005 has been taken as a base, where Section 4 notification was issued on 26.08.2004 i.e. 5 years after the issuance of notification under Section 4 in the case on hand. The additional compensation was awarded at the rate of Rs.646.50 per sq. mtr. and after deducting 50%, the amount worked out was Rs.491 per sq. mtr. The additional compensation was awarded at the rate of Rs.646.50 per sq. mtr. and after deducting 50%, the amount worked out was Rs.491 per sq. mtr. It is submitted that considering the gap between Section 4 notification in both the cases; if 50% deduction is effected from Rs.491 per sq. mtr., the additional compensation, would be at the most Rs.245 per sq. mtr. Therefore, the additional compensation which deserves to be awarded, should be at the most Rs.240 or Rs.250 per sq. mtr. and not more than that. 4.3 It is urged that the impugned judgment may be modified accordingly and the additional compensation may be awarded considering the common oral judgment in the case of General Manager – Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. vs. Chavda Jasvantsinh Kalusinh passed in First Appeal no.4979 of 2008 and taking guidelines from the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Arvindbhai Bhagabhai Patel & Another vs. The State of Gujarat & Another. 5. Mr Shivam Parikh, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the Land Acquisition Officer, while adopting the submissions made by Mr Ajay R. Mehta, learned advocate appearing for the appellants, submitted that the Apex Court, was dealing with the notification issued under Section 4 of the year 2004. So far as the present case is concerned, the notification under Section 4 , was of the year 1999 and when the Apex Court, has determined the additional compensation at the rate of Rs.491 per sq. mtr. effecting the deduction of 50% for 5 years, the compensation should be at the rate of Rs.245 per sq. mtr. The learned Judge below, also has committed an error in accepting the judgment rendered in the case of Pindarda village and not the judgment rendered in the case of Mansa village. It is urged that the appeals deserve to be allowed. 6. Mr Aditya J. Pandya, learned advocate, while vehemently opposing the appeals, submitted that various Land Acquisition Reference cases were filed, namely, Land Acquisition Reference case nos.90 of 2005, 91 of 2005, 93 of 2005 to 96 of 2005 and also the Land Acquisition Reference case nos.100 of 2005 and 101 of 2005. It is submitted that the judgment rendered in Land Acquisition Reference case no.90 of 2005 is accepted by ONGC and has attained finality. It is submitted that the judgment rendered in Land Acquisition Reference case no.90 of 2005 is accepted by ONGC and has attained finality. It is submitted that the judgment rendered in Land Acquisition Reference case no.90 of 2005 was taken note of by the Apex Court in the case of Arvindbhai Bhagabhai Patel vs. The State of Gujarat (supra) and the compensation was accordingly awarded at the rate of Rs.646.50 per sq. mtr. inasmuch as, Section 4 notification was of the year 1999. Appreciation for 5 years was allowed and the amount arrived at was Rs.646.50 per sq. mtr. and thereafter, 24-25 percent was deducted towards development and smallness. The additional compensation which, was worked out was at the rate of Rs.491 per sq. mtr. Therefore, the judgment rendered in Land Acquisition Reference case no.90 of 2005, has been taken note of by the Apex Court and has attained finality. 6.1 It is further submitted that the Division Bench, in the First Appeal no.5272 of 2010, arising out of the Land Acquisition Reference case nos.100 0f 2005 and 101 of 2005 has considered each and every aspect including the judgment of the Apex Court and other similar cases, and the appeal, came to be rejected. What weighed with the Division Bench, were the factors as indicated in paragraph 15. One of which, was the judgment of the Reference Court rendered in Land Acquisition Reference case no.90 of 2005. Moreover, the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Arvindbhai Bhagabhai Patel vs. The State of Gujarat (supra) was also considered. It is submitted that the Division Bench took note of the fact of the date of Section 4 notification being 21.12.1999 and did not interfere with the appeal and thereby, the judgment of the Reference Court stood confirmed. Therefore, there are the judgments of the coordinate Bench as well as of the Apex Court in the connected Land Acquisition Reference case and hence, there is no reason not to follow the said judgment. 7. Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and perused the documents made available on the record. 8. The lands in question, were acquired for the purpose of Drill Site no.L.M.D.T. by the ONGC. In furtherance thereof, Section 4 notification was published on 21.12.1999, followed by publication of Section 6 notification on 13.12.2000. 7. Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and perused the documents made available on the record. 8. The lands in question, were acquired for the purpose of Drill Site no.L.M.D.T. by the ONGC. In furtherance thereof, Section 4 notification was published on 21.12.1999, followed by publication of Section 6 notification on 13.12.2000. The Land Acquisition Officer published the award under Section 11 on 06.05.2002 and determined the market value at the rate of Rs.24-00 per sq. mtr. Being aggrieved, the claimants, had approached the Reference Court which culminated into Land Acquisition Reference case nos.91 of 2005, 93 of 2005 to 96 of 2005. 9. In the proceedings before the Reference Court, evidence were produced by both the parties. Judgments – Exhs. 15 and 16 were produced on the record of village Mansa and adjoining village Pindarda. It has been noted that the distance between villages Mansa and Pindarda is around 4 to 5 kilometers. It is also recorded that Mansa is a more developed village as compared to Pindarda. Evidence – Exh.21 was considered. The learned Judge opined that in the case of village Pindarda, the market value determined was at Rs.353 per sq. mtr. and therefore, the market value of village Mansa cannot be determined at Rs.294 per sq. mtr. on the basis of the judgment of village Mansa. The learned Judge was of the view that the judgment – Exh.16 of village Pindarda constituted a relevant and material piece of evidence for the purpose of determining the market value. After discussing the evidence in detail, the learned Judge, relied upon the judgment rendered in Land Acquisition Reference case no.314 of 2000 produced at Exh.16 wherein, compensation was awarded at the rate of Rs.353 per sq. mtr. of village Pindarda situated near village Mansa. The learned Judge, noted that in the Land Acquisition Reference case no.314 of 2000, Section 4 notification was issued in the year 1997 and considering the gap of two years, an appreciation of 10% needs to be allowed, by placing reliance on the judgment in the case of Deputy General Manager – O.N.G.C. vs. Chaturji Lalaji & Ors. Accordingly, the total market value of the lands, was determined at the rate of Rs.434 per sq. mtr. As the Land Acquisition Officer had already awarded Rs.24- 00 per sq. Accordingly, the total market value of the lands, was determined at the rate of Rs.434 per sq. mtr. As the Land Acquisition Officer had already awarded Rs.24- 00 per sq. mtr., the said amount was deducted and the learned Judge, ordered that the additional compensation would be at the rate of Rs.411 per sq. mtr. The said judgment, is under challenge before this Court. 10. Notably, in the Land Acquisition Reference case no.90 of 2005, the Land Acquisition Officer, had determined the compensation at the rate of Rs.24-00 per sq. mtr. The additional compensation was determined at the rate of Rs.407 per sq. mtr. after deducting Rs.24 per sq. mtr. which was awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. It is also not in dispute and is discernible from the record that no appeal has been filed against the judgment rendered in Land Acquisition Reference case no.90 of 2005. 11. Similarly, together with the said Land Acquisition References involved in the captioned appeals, Land Acquisition Reference case nos.100 of 2005 and 101 of 2005 were also decided by the judgment of the even date which aspect is also not in dispute. Against the said judgment dated 22.03.2007 passed in Land Acquisition Reference case nos.100 of 2005 and 101 of 2005, First Appeal no.5272 of 2010 was preferred before this Court and this Court, vide oral order dated 19.04.2023, rejected the appeal, observing thus: “12. At this stage, it would be relevant to note that the judgement and award dated 28.03.2007 was passed subsequently in LAR No.90 of 2005 by the very same Court i.e. learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gandhinagar for the lands acquired by the appellant - acquiring body in the very same village for the Drill Site, for which Section 4 notification was published on 13.10.1999. The reference Court has awarded compensation of Rs.431/- per sq.mtr. along with the statutory interest. 13. It is interesting to note that subsequently for the very same village and the same acquiring body, for which Section 4 notification of the Act was issued on 26.08.2004, such acquisition was carried upto the Apex Court and the same culminated into Civil Appeal No.9061-9110 of 2011. By the judgement and order dated 01.11.2017, the first appeals were disposed of and the Apex Court determined the compensation of Rs.491/- per sq.mtr. along with statutory benefits. By the judgement and order dated 01.11.2017, the first appeals were disposed of and the Apex Court determined the compensation of Rs.491/- per sq.mtr. along with statutory benefits. It is pertinent to note that the reference Court as well as this Court, while determining the compensation of the lands, which are subject matter before the Apex Court, has placed reliance on the notification published under Section 4 dated 14.10.1999 by the appellant acquiring body for acquiring the lands of the very same village, for which compensation of Rs.431/- per sq.mtr. had already become final. The reference Court, High Court and the Apex Court, while placing reliance on such compensation of Rs.431/- per sq.mtr., which was granted for the acquisition of land, for which Section 4 notification was issued on 14.10.1999, has ultimately determined price of Rs.491/- per sq.mtr. for the lands acquired of the very same village vide notification dated 26.08.2004. The facts of the case before the Apex Court and the observations made therein are as under: “Facts: Land acquisition proceedings were initiated by issuance of notification under Section 4 of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT , 1984 (hereinafter referred to as “Act”) on 26.08.2004 followed by declaration dated 12.01.2005 under Section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Officer passed Award under Section 11 of the Act, determining the compensation at the rate of Rs.25 per square meter. The land owners sought reference under Section 18 of the Act. They claimed compensation at the rate of Rs.800 per square meter. They relied upon the report of the District Valuation Committee, Gandhinagar, for the Village Mansa fixing the rate at Rs.815 per square meter. They also relied upon the Award in the case of land acquisition for which notification under Section 4 had been issued on 14.10.1999; compensation was determined at the rate of Rs.431 per square meter, for the land acquired for the purpose of a drill site to be set ip by Oil and Natural Gas Corporation (ONGC), at a distance of 2 km in the same village. Reliance was also placed by the land owners on the valuation report by the Government Registered Valuer determining the rate at Rs.700 per square meter for the land, and at Rs.800 per square meter for the and with fruit bearing trees. Land owners, as well as other parties, adduced the evidence before the Reference Court. Reliance was also placed by the land owners on the valuation report by the Government Registered Valuer determining the rate at Rs.700 per square meter for the land, and at Rs.800 per square meter for the and with fruit bearing trees. Land owners, as well as other parties, adduced the evidence before the Reference Court. Observations: Coming to the question of determination of compensation made by the Reference Court, by relying on the Award, passed in the case of ONGC, in which, acquisition had been made in October, 1999, for a small area, and compensation had been determined at the rate of Rs.431 per square meter. In the absence of any other evidence, we rake the same into consideration for determining the compensation. However, we propose to make certain deductions. The calculation worked out by the Reference Court, by adding 10 per cent per annum comes to the figure of Rs.646.50 per square meter. We have to deduct approximately 24-25 per cent of the compensation towards development and smallness. The area that had been acquired for the purposes of ONGC was small but, considering the potentiality of land, we make this slightly lesser deduction; as deduction even up to 60 per cent is permissible. This deduction is made in the peculiar facts of the case, and considering the development that has taken place around that place. Thus, the compensation had been worked out at Rs.646.50 per square meter, deducting 24/25 per cent from the same, the value comes at rate of Rs.491 per square meter. We award compensation at the rate of Rs.491 per square meter along with statutory benefits, the compensation that remains undisbursed be paid within a period of three months from today. The appeals are allowed to the aforesaid extent.”” 14. A bare perusal of the aforesaid observations of the Apex Court reveal that after determining the compensation of Rs.646.56/- per sq.mtr. and on the ground of development and smallness of the land in question i.e. lands of village Mansa, 24%-25% has been deducted and value is determined at Rs.491/- per sq.mtr. 15. Thus, there are four Section 4 notifications issued under the the Act for acquiring the lands of village Mansa by the appellant. Those are as under: (i) Notification dated 13.10.1999 Exh.14- LAR 171-174 of 2005 (reliance placed by the appellant-ONGC); (ii) Notification dated 14.10.1999, for which the compensation of Rs.431/- per sq.mtr. 15. Thus, there are four Section 4 notifications issued under the the Act for acquiring the lands of village Mansa by the appellant. Those are as under: (i) Notification dated 13.10.1999 Exh.14- LAR 171-174 of 2005 (reliance placed by the appellant-ONGC); (ii) Notification dated 14.10.1999, for which the compensation of Rs.431/- per sq.mtr. has become final and has been accepted by the appellant-ONGC, (iii) Notification dated 26.08.2004, LAR No.410 to 461 of 2006, wherein the Apex Court has awarded the amount of Rs.491/- per sq.mtr. That too after determining the amount of Rs.646.56/- and deducted 24%-25% on the ground of development and smallness and (iv) In the present case, section 4 notification of the Act dated 21.12.1999 for the lands acquired by the acquiring body-ONGC for the Drill Site. The reference Court as noted hereinabove has awarded Rs.435/- per sq.mtr. 16. Thus, the judgement and order passed by the Apex Court is premised on the lands acquired by the appellant - ONGC of village Mansa for the Drill Site, for which Section 4 notification of the Act was published on 13.10.1999 and the compensation of Rs.431/- per sq.mtr. awarded by the reference Court in LAR No.90 of 2005 has become final. Considering the same, the Apex Court has determined the compensation of Rs.646.50 sq.mtr., for which Section 4 notification was issued on 26.08.2004. After deducting 24%-25% for smallness and development, the Supreme Court has determined the amount of Rs.491/- sq.mtr. Thus, setting an exemplar from the said amount of compensation of Rs.431 and Rs.491/-, in the present case, considering the Section 4 notification was issued on 21.12.1999, we do not find any infirmity or illegality committed by the reference Court in determining the compensation of Rs.435/- per sq.mtr. by the impugned judgement and award. 17. The only contention raised before this Court by the appellant to ignore the compensation of Rs.431/- per sq.mtr. as awarded by the reference Court vide order dated 28.03.2007 in LAR No.90 of 2005 is that due to oversight, the acquiring body-ONGC did not challenge the aforesaid judgement and award at the relevant time. by the impugned judgement and award. 17. The only contention raised before this Court by the appellant to ignore the compensation of Rs.431/- per sq.mtr. as awarded by the reference Court vide order dated 28.03.2007 in LAR No.90 of 2005 is that due to oversight, the acquiring body-ONGC did not challenge the aforesaid judgement and award at the relevant time. This Court cannot quash and set aside the judgement and award passed by the reference Court on such lame excuse that the appellant - ONGC through oversight did not challenge the judgement and award dated 28.03.2007, in wake of the fact that subsequently the Apex Court has already determined the compensation by placing reliance on such award. 18. It is also not in dispute that the claimants have been allowed to withdraw the entire compensation as awarded vide order dated 10.12.2007 passed below Exh.30 by the Tribunal pursuant to the execution proceedings initiated by the claimants. Thereafter, the present appeal has been filed belatedly after a delay of 497 days. 19. Thus, in view of the subsequent development, after passing of the impugned judgement and award and the confirmation of compensation of Rs.431/- per sq.mtr. for acquisition of the lands of the very same village by the very same acquiring body, the judgement and award dated 28.03.2007 passed in LAR No.90 of 2005 having become final, we are not inclined to quash and set aside the aforesaid impugned judgement and award.” 12. Pertinently, the Land Acquisition Reference cases in connection with the acquisition for the Drilling Site were registered in seriatim, namely, Land Acquisition Reference case nos.90 of 2005, 91 of 2005, 93 of 2005 to 96 of 2005 and Land Acquisition Reference case nos.100 of 2005 and 101 of 2005. So far as Land Acquisition Reference case no.90 of 2005 is concerned, as discussed hereinabove, the same has attained finality. Insofar as Land Acquisition Reference case nos.100 of 2005 and 101 of 2005 are concerned, the judgment rendered in those reference cases, stood confirmed after the rejection of the First Appeal no.5272 of 2010 by the coordinate Bench vide oral order dated 19.04.2023. 13. At this stage, certain observations of the Apex Court in the case of Arvindbhai Bhagabhai Patel vs. The State of Gujarat (supra) which dealt with the very same acquisition by the ONGC for Drilling Site deserves reference. 13. At this stage, certain observations of the Apex Court in the case of Arvindbhai Bhagabhai Patel vs. The State of Gujarat (supra) which dealt with the very same acquisition by the ONGC for Drilling Site deserves reference. In the said case, Section 4 notification was issued in the year 2004; however, the Apex Court considered the additional compensation determined in Land Acquisition Reference case no.90 of 2005. The Apex Court, observed thus: “This Court has also reiterated in the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Mysore Urban Development Authority v. Sakamma [ 2010 (14) SCC 503 ], that in the absence of evidence as to comparable land, Award/judgment in another case cannot be accepted. That being the position of law, in our opinion, the High Court has wrongly taken into consideration the Award passed in the case of the village Sargasan. Even if it were to be taken into consideration, the same could not have been formed the basis by the High Court for determining the compensation, as the Award, with respect to the same village, in closer proximity of time, was available in the instant case. It was not safe to rely upon the Award with respect to a different village, that too in which, acquisition had been made 11 years before. Even if this Award is taken into consideration, reliance on the same could not be said to be permissible and in accordance with law as other better evidence was on record. Coming to the question of determination of compensation made by the Reference Court, by relying on the Award, passed in the case of ONGC, in which, acquisition had been made in October, 1999, for a small area, and compensation had been determined at the rate of Rs.431 per square meter. In the absence of any other evidence, we take the same into consideration for determining the compensation. However, we propose to make certain deductions. The valuation worked out by the Reference Court, by adding 10 per cent per annum, comes to the figure of Rs.646.50 per square meter. We have to deduct approximately 24-25 per cent of the compensation towards development and smallness. The area that had been acquired for the purposes of ONGC was small; but, considering the potentiality of land, we make this slightly lesser deduction; as deduction even up to 60 per cent is permissible. We have to deduct approximately 24-25 per cent of the compensation towards development and smallness. The area that had been acquired for the purposes of ONGC was small; but, considering the potentiality of land, we make this slightly lesser deduction; as deduction even up to 60 per cent is permissible. This deduction is made in the peculiar facts of the case, and considering the development that has taken place around that place. Thus, the compensation had been worked out at Rs.646.50 per square meter, deducting 24/25 per cent from the same, the value comes at rate of Rs.491 per square meter. We award compensation at the rate of Rs.491 per square meter along with statutory benefits, the compensation that remains undisbursed be paid within a period of three months from today. The appeals are allowed to the aforesaid extent.” 14. Therefore, the additional compensation determined in Land Acquisition Reference case no.90 of 2005 so also additional compensation determined in Land Acquisition Reference case nos.100 of 2005 and 101 of 2005, is almost confirmed. The captioned appeals are arising out of the connected Land Acquisition References, and thus, there is no reason available for this Court not to take a different view, more particularly, when the judgment rendered in Land Acquisition Reference case nos.100 of 2005 and 101 of 2005, is almost identical. 15. So far as reliance placed on the judgment in the case of General Manager – Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. vs. Chavda Jasvantsinh Kalusinh rendered in First Appeal no.4979 of 2008 is concerned, it is true that acquisition is of same village but, was not brought to the notice of the Division Bench of this Court while passing the order dated 19.04.2023 in R/First Appeal no.5272 of 2010. After the judgment and in the interregnum, the matter traveled upto the Apex Court and the Apex Court, has awarded additional compensation. The SLP, was arising out of the judgment dated 28.04.2011 passed in First Appeal no.3379 of 2009 and other allied matters. The Reference Court in the said case, awarded additional compensation at Rs.560 per sq. mtr. which came to be reduced by the Division Bench to Rs.373 per sq. mtr. and was subject matter of challenge and the Apex Court while relying upon the Land Acquisition Reference case no.90 of 2005, and after deducting the appreciation, worked out the additional compensation at Rs.491 per sq. mtr. mtr. which came to be reduced by the Division Bench to Rs.373 per sq. mtr. and was subject matter of challenge and the Apex Court while relying upon the Land Acquisition Reference case no.90 of 2005, and after deducting the appreciation, worked out the additional compensation at Rs.491 per sq. mtr. It was very much available to the ONGC, to have pointed out the judgment in the case of General Manager – Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. vs. Chavda Jasvantsinh Kalusinh ; it appears that the same, was not done either before the Apex Court or before the Division Bench of this Court and therefore, reliance now placed on the said judgment, is misplaced and untenable. 16. In view of the above discussion and coupled with judgment rendered by the coordinate Bench in the case of General Manager vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer so also the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Arvindbhai Bhagabhai Patel vs. The State of Gujarat , this Court, is of the considered opinion that the appeals do not warrant interference and are rejected. No order as to costs. Record & proceedings, if any received, be sent back to the Court concerned.