( 1 ) THIS batch of 127 Civil Appeals is directed against the order passed in Land Reference Cases decided by the Assistant District Judge, amreli on various dates with regard to the claimants of villages Amreli, Bakshipur and Giriya, whose lands had been acquired for "thebi IRRIGATION SCHEME". In each and all these appeals before us, the learned Counsel for appellants has challenged enhanced rate of compensation awarded by the Reference Court. Whereas all these Appeals relate to the lands acquired for the same Scheme and the matters involve identical questions, based on the facts of each group in which the common orders were passed by the Court while deciding the Land Reference cases, we propose to decide all these 127 Civil Appeals by this common Judgment and order. We have divided these Appeals into 14 groups in all with reference to the concerned village and the common order passed by the Reference Court in each of these fourteen groups.

( 2 ) AT the very outset, it was pointed out on behalf of the claimants (respondents) that in an identical case i. e. Civil Appeal No. 3119 of 1997 a division Bench of this Court (Coram : Y. B. Bhatt and C. K. Buch, JJ.) had already dismissed the Appeal summarily on 23-2-1998 and, therefore, these appeals may also be dismissed. However, Mr. S. N. Shelat, learned Addl. Advocate General, has submitted that the order dated 23-2-1998 has not attained finality and that it was dismissed summarily and he urged that these matters may be heard separately. The contents of this order dated 23-2-1998 are reproduced as under :"coram : MR. JUSTICE Y. B. BHATT and mr. JUSTICE C. K. BUCH date of Order: 23-2-1998 oral ORDER heard learned Counsel for the appellants. This appeal has been filed under Sec. 54 of the Land Acquisition Act read with sec. 96 of the C. P. Code by the State challenging the impugned award passed by the District Court under Sec. 18 of the said Act. The impugned judgment, taken in its overall perspective, is in our opinion, not assailable. We agree with the assessment of the evidence on the part of the reference Court, conclusions drawn therefrom and the findings of fact recorded. The Reference Court has relied upon its decision in a group of Land Acquisition cases decided under Sec. 18 of the said Act, the judgment whereof is at Exh. 11 in the record of the present reference. There is no dispute that it is a comparable instance. The only contention raised is that the location of two villages in question is different or that the same are located at some distance from each other. Only technically this may seem to be true, but that by itself does not make the same not comparable nor would it result in any appreciable difference so far as determination of the market value is concerned. This aspect has been dealt with in para 9 and 10 of the impugned judgment. Learned Counsel for the appellant is unable to assail the logic and reasoning of the Reference Court in this context. This appeal is, therefore, summarily dismissed. Sd/- (Y. B. BHATT, J.) sd/- (C. K. BUCH, J.)"in the facts and circumstances of this case, we find that whereas the present appeals listed before us have already been admitted, the same are required to be considered separately in detail, on merits and, therefore, we have heard these matters in 14 classified groups and proceed to decide the same accordingly.

( 3 ) BEFORE we take up each group of the Appeals as under, it may be mentioned that on behalf of the appellants as well as claimants certain cases have been cited before us and we find it appropriate to refer to the general principles which have been decided in these cases which we find to be relevant for the purposes of the cases at hand, as have been referred to by the learned Counsel for the parties before us. (i) In case of Tarlochan Singh v. State of Punjab, reported in JT 1995 (2) SC 91, it was held that sale transactions of small extents of land are absolutely and totally irrelevant and cannot fo