( 1 ) ). The appellants-original claimants have filed this appeal against the judgment and Award dt. 3-2-1979 passed by learned City Civil Judge (Court no. 10) in Compensation Case No. 2 of 1977. The claimants are the owners of land bearing Survey No. 361 of village Rakhial, Taluka City Ahmedabad. Part of the land admeasuring 3650 sq. mtrs. was sought to be acquired for circular road for National Highway. Notification under Sec. 4 of the Land Acquisition act ("act" for short) was published on 31-10-1971. The Notification under Sec. 6 of the Act was published on 1-3-1973. Notices under Sec. 9 were served on the concerned parties and after considering the evidence the Land Acquisition officer passed an award on 13-8-1976 whereby he awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 5-50 per sq. mtr. The claimants being dissatisfied with the said Award requested the Land Acquisition Officer to make reference under sec. 18 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Officer made reference before the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad which was registered as Compensation Case no. 2 of 1977. The claimants had claimed Rs. 22. 00 per sq. mtr. before the Land Acquisition Officer. However, they were awarded Rs. 5-50 per sq. mtr. In the Reference under Sec. 18 the claimants have claimed Rs. 22/ - per sq. mtr. To support their claim for the compensation the parties have led necessary documentary evidence. No oral evidence is led by either of the claimants or the Government. The learned City Civil Judge after considering the evidence on record awarded Rs. 14. 00 per sq. mtr.

( 2 ) ). Before the City Civil Court, the claimants have relied on evidence led in Compensation Case No. 26 of 1973 which pertains to acquisition and compensation of Survey No. 346/1/1 and 346/1/2, 367, 369, 370/1 and 370/ 2 of the very village Rakhial. They also relied on the judgment in that compensation Case being Ex. 49 on record. The claimants also produced map Ex. 58 showing the situation of land under acquisition. The State produced document Ex. 52 a sale deed dtd. 19-1-1970 of Survey No. 376/ 1 whereby the land thereunder was sold at the rate of Rs. 15. 00per sq. yds. The agreement to sell for that Survey No. 376/1 was entered into by the parties on 2-7-1969.

( 3 ) ). The learned Advocate for the claimants had contended before the City civil Court that lands under acquisition in Compensation Case No. 26 of 1973 are most comparable in site situation, size and location to the land under acquisition. He had also contended before that Court that land under acquisition has equal building potentiality as that of land under Compensation case No. 26 of 1973. He has also contended that simply because the land under acquisition was within the agricultural zone it has not lost its building potentiality. He has also contended there that simply because the land under compensation Case No. 26 of 1973 was reserved for Housing Board it has not acquired for any additional building potentiality then the land under acquisition. It was argued that land in both the cases are identical except they are reserved for different purpose.

( 4 ) ). The learned Advocate for the State had argued that in view of the absolute restriction on the land under acquisition for building purpose it has no building potentiality. He has further argued that land Survey No. 376 of Rakhial village which is in the near vicinity of the land under acquisition and which is not under any reservation is sold at the rate of Rs. 15. 00 per sq. yd. , and therefore, instant of the land S. No. 376 though sold at a later date then the land involved in Compensation Case No. 26 of 1973 should be taken into consideration. It was also contended that because the land under acquisition has no building potentiality in view of the fact of being reserved for agricultural zone it should be discounted to not only Survey No. 376, but also to Survey Numbers covered in Compensation Case No. 26 of 1973.

( 5 ) ). The learned City Civil Judge after consid