( 1 ) ADMIT. Service of notice of admission is waived by Shri P. G. Desai, Government Pleader, S/shri L. R. Poojari and A. J. Desai, A. G. Ps.

( 2 ) UPON joint request and in view of the nature of dispute, which is very limited and which is also covered by various decisions, the entire group is ordered to be heard today.

( 3 ) IN this group of 43 appeals, common questions are involved. Upon joint request the entire group, after hearing Shri Amin, learned Advocate and the learned government Pleader, is being disposed of by this common judgment.

( 4 ) BY invoking the provisions of S. 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for brevity), the appellants, who are the original land owners and claimants, have challenged the common judgment recorded on 10-9-1995 by the District Court, Ahmedabad (Rural) at Mirzapur in Land Acquisition case Nos. 601 to 642 of 1989 and Land Acquisition Case No. 203 of 1990.

( 5 ) THE award under S. 18 of the Act allowed the references partly. The reference Court in its common judgment has directed the respondents-original opponents to pay the claimants an additional amount of compensation at the rate of Rs. 13. 00 per sq. mtr. for their acquired lands in their respective Land Reference cases together with 30 percent solatium with interest at the rate of 9 percent per annum for the period of one year from the date of taking over possession of the acquired lands and thereafter at the rate of 15 percent per annum from the expiry of that one year till payment.

( 6 ) THE Reference Court has also held that the appellants-original claimants are entitled to get 12 percent increase on the market value on the acquired lands for the period from 20-11-1986 to 9-3-1989, like that from the date of publication of notification under S. 4 (1) of the Act till the date of award under S. 23 (1a) of the Act. The impugned common judgment also directs that 5 percent Government share shall be deducted from the compensation awarded in respect of the lands acquired, if they are of new tenure.

( 7 ) IT may be mentioned here that the respondents have not filed the appeals against the impugned common judgment. No cross-objections are also filed. After hearing the learned Advocate Shri Amin, for the appellants-original claimants and the learned Government Pleader Shri Desai for the respondents-original opponents and considering the facts and circumstances emerging from the record of the present case, copies whereof came to be supplied to us, the controversy has shrunk down to a small dimension as highlighted, hereinafter.

( 8 ) ONLY following two submissions are raised on behalf of the appellants : (i) that the claimants are entitled to the benefit of the provisions of S. 23 (1a) of the Act, not from the date of notification under S. 4 (1) of the Act, but from the date of possession, if it is earlier. (ii) that the deduction of 5 percent Government share from the amount of compensation is not permissible and legal in view of the decision rendered by this bench in earlier such matters.

( 9 ) THE aforesaid two contentions are the questions of law. However, it was not possible for us to ascertain from the original record, which we had also called for, as to what was the exact date of taking over possession of the acquired lands by the acquiring authority from the claimants. It was also not pointed out or indicated by the learned Advocates appearing for the parties with regard to the date of possession. However, the learned Advocates appearing for the parties are at ad idem and in their consensual statement stated that the benefit of provisions of S. 23 (1a) of the Act would be available to the claimants provided possession of the acquired land is taken over by the authority or is handed over by the claimants prior to the publication of notification under S. 4 (1) of the Act. Therefore, insofar as first contention raised in support of the group of appeals is concerned it would not detain