( 1 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the appellants.

( 2 ) THESE Appeals are directed by the State of Gujarat and the Deputy Collector, Land acquisition, Dharoi Canal Project, Visnagar, against the common judgment and order of the 3rd Extra Assistant Judge, Mehsana in Land Acquisition Reference Case Nos. 297 of 1989 and 331 of 1989, Main LAR No. 305 of 1989 decided on 24th October, 1996.

( 3 ) THE land acquisition proceedings have been initiated for the purpose of Dharoi canal Project and the lands situated in the sim of village Chhogala, Taluka Visnagar, district Mehsana, of the claimants, the respondents herein, in these Appeals have been acquired for this Project. The Notification under Sec. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for this acquisition was published in the Government Gazette on 30. 5. 1985 and the notification under Sec. 6 was published on 16. 7. 1987. After issuing the notice under Sec. 9 of the Act to the persons interested in the acquired lands, the Land Acquisition Officer, under its Award dated 29th March, 1988, awarded the compensation to the claimants- sespondents at the rate of Rs. 1. 80 per sq. mt. The claimants-respondents were not satisfied with this Award of the Land Acquisition Officer as the amount of compensation awarded to them was not just, adequate, proper and reasonable and as such, they prayed for making a Reference of the matter to the Civil Court and accordingly Reference were made to the Civil Court which came to be decided under the impugned judgment and award.

( 4 ) BEFORE the Reference Court, the claimants-respondents have claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 10/- per sq. mt. The appellants herein have contested those Reference by filing common objections. In order to prove the claims from the side of the claimants-respondents, one Shri Karshanbhai Nathubhai was examined at Ex. 13. The claimants-respondents have further produced before the Reference Court in support of their cases, the extracts of Village Form No. 7/12 vide Ex. 14 to 74, tracing of Talati-cum- mantri vide Ex. 76 and certified copies of the judgments of the Reference Court of the said District in LAR No. 3/88 to 20/88 and 171/77, LAR 507/89 to 518/89 and LAR No. 439/89 to 475/89.

( 5 ) THE appellants, who were the opponents in the Reference Court have neither adduced any oral evidence not produced any documentary evidence in these Reference and they have closed their evidence vide Purshis Ex. 81.

( 6 ) THE learned Reference Court has noticed that in these cases, the claimants have not relied on any sale transaction or any expert evidence to establish the market price of the lands. The learned Reference Court has initially proceeded to determine the compensation to be awarded to the claimants for the compulsory acquisition of land by adopting yield method, but during the course of arguments, the learned counsel who was appearing for the claimants has produced the decision of the Reference Court, detailed above, by the district Court, Mehsana, wherein the compensation was awarded at the rate of Rs. 10/- per sq. mt. The subject matter of those Reference was the acquisition proceedings of the land of village Thalota for this very Dharoi Canal Project. The evidence which has come or record that there is a common boundary of village Chhogala and village Thalota, has been accepted by the Reference Court. There is also evidence on record and which has been accepted by the Reference Court that the lands of these two villages are of equal fertility. So while determining the compensation to be awarded to the claimants, the reference Court has put reliance on its own previous decision which was given for acquisition of neighbouring lands which were acquired for the same Project. It is not in dispute that the previous judgment of the Reference Court for determining the compensation to be paid to the claimants in this case is a relevant and material piece of evidence. However, while relying on the judgment, the Re