( 1 ) THE First Appeal No. 1319 of 1978 was filed by the original claimant while First Appeal No. 71 of 1979 was filed by the State government. Both these appeals arise from the award given by the learned district Judge, Sabarkantha dt. 31-7-1978 in Land Acquisition Case No. 1 of 1975. The said Land Acquisition Case had arisen on account of the reference made under Sec. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the L. A. Act ).

( 2 ) BEING aggrieved by the aforesaid award of Rs. 19,056. 00 together with interest at the rate of 41/2 per cent from 31/08/1974 till payment or till the deposit of the said amount in the Court with proportionate costs, both the aforesaid parties have filed the appeals as stated above. The claimants wants more compensation; while according to the Government the learned district Judge has wrongly increased the compensation.

( 3 ) THE lands are acquired for the Sabarmati Reservoir Project-Dharoi known as Dharoi Project. The lands acquired are of Village Dhebdi under khedbrahma Taluka of Sabarkantha bearing Survey No. 16 admeasuring 19 acres 20 Gunthas (7 Hectare 89 are and 14 sq. metre ). The notification under Sec. 4 of the L. A. Act was published on 8-9-1971. The notification under Sec. 6 of the said Act was published on 27-4-1972.

( 4 ) THE Land Acquisition Officer passed the award on 28-6-1974 and in pursuance of the said award, the possession was taken on August 1974. By the said award, the total compensation of Rs. 61,107. 83 p. a. was given to the claimant which also includes an amount of Rs. 3,760. 00 as additional compensation for machine room and pipe line which are situated in the acquired land. In reference against the said award, the claimant has prayed for an additional compensation of Rs. 1,12,320. 00. It is also an undisputed fact that the land of the appellant in First Appeal No. 1319 of 1978 which is acquired, is new tenure land and as it was new tenure land, 2/3rd of the compensation would be paid to the claimant.

( 5 ) BEFORE the learned District Judge, reliance was placed on the said instances at Exhs. 25, 33, 38 and 34 on behalf of the claimant; while on behalf of the State Government reliance was placed on the Government notification dt. 27-3-1974 which is at Exh. 3 on record. As per the said notification, the price for the irrigated land for the villages under Group-A is rs. 4,300/- and the same for the land of the said group of villages for the non-irrigated land is Rs. 3,300. 00. So far as lands of villages under Group-B is concerned, the price agreed is Rs. 3,330. 00 for the irrigated one while Rs. 2,300. 00 for the non-irrigated land. The land acquired was treated as the land of Group-B and part of the area of the land was treated as irrigated while the other part of the land was treated by the Collector as non-irrigated land. It was argued before the learned District Judge that the Land Acquisition Officer has blindly accepted the said Notification and acted upon it.

( 6 ) IT is submitted by Shri Tripathi, learned Assistant Government pleader that the market value has been wrongly increased by the learned district Judge and the Land Acquisition Officer has rightly considered part of the land of villages of Group-B as non-irrigated and part as irrigated and he has also submitted that looking to the proximity, part of the land be treated as non-irrigated land.

( 7 ) AS against this, learned Advocate Mr. Shelat for the claimant has submitted that the entire lands should be treated as irrigated as it has the facility of irrigation through the well and therefore, there is no question of treating part of the land as irrigated land and part as non-irrigated land.

( 8 ) MR. Shelat has further submitted that the learned District Judge has not properly appreciated the sale instances and has therefore, erred in determining the correct market rate. The learned District Judge has also committed the same error by following the same notification is not applicabl