JUDGMENT :

N.V. Anjaria, J.

1. The present appeal preferred by the Land Acquisition Officer under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 read with section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is directed against common judgment and award dated 5th May, 2000 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Surat, in Land Reference Cases No. 38 of 1993 and other reference cases, in so far as the said common judgment and award pertains to the Land Reference Case No. 38 of 1993.

2. The Reference Court partly allowed the reference in question alongwith other reference cases awarding compensation at the enhanced rate of Rs. 25 per sq.mtrs., further granting the benefit of solatium etc..

3. The land bearing Survey No. 239 admeasuring 1 Hec. 13 Are and 16 sq.mtrs. situated at village Gaviar, Surat belonging to the respondent claimant came to be acquired alongwith other parcels of land under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for the public purpose of extension of airport at Dumas, Surat. Notification under section 4 of the Act of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was published on 28.12.1989 whereas notification under section 6 of the Act came to be published on 1.12.1990. The Land Acquisition officer declared his award under section 11 of the Act on 30.12.1992 awarding Rs. 3.50. Rs. 6, Rs. 8 and Rs. 10 depending upon the category of the lands against the amount of compensation at Rs. 200/- per sq.mtr. demanded by the claimants.

3.1. The aggrieved claimant respondent herein with other claimants whose lands were also acquired under the same notification, made reference under section 18 of the Act. The Reference court passed the impugned judgment and award and awarded Rs. 25/- per sq.mtrs. with other benefits as per the operative directions in the award. It appears that reference case No. 38 of 1993 to which the present First Appeal corresponds, was the main Reference case in the group of reference cases decided as per the common judgment and award.

4. While in the memorandum of appeal, various grounds are raised to call in question the judgment and award of the Reference Court and the enhanced rate of compensation awarded, in course of the hearing, learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Divyangna Jhala was fair to submit before the court that the very common judgment and award was subject matter of challenge by the State before this Court in group of Appeals which culminated into judgment dated 11.8.2011 in Special Land Acquisition Officer, Deputy Collector and other v. Parbhubhai Hirabhai and other being First Appeal No. 498 of 2003 to First Appeal No. 512 of 2003.

4.1. Learned advocate Mr. Dinesh Shah appearing for the respondents claimants could not dispute the above position of law emanating from record, nor was he in a position to submit that the aforesaid judgment dated 11.8.2011 in the rest of the reference cases have been modified or further challenged.

5. It could be thus noticed that in deciding the group of said First Appeals, reference case No. 38 of 1993 was not dealt with. In another words, the present appeal is a left out case amongst the group of cases decided as above by this court on 11.8.2011.

5.1. The reading of the judgment of this court in aforesaid cognate group of Appeals show that the Court in detail considered the common judgment and award of the reference court to notice as observed in para 7 and elsewhere in the judgment, that reference court relied on Exh. 36 and Exh. 37 respectively, which were the award in relation to acquisition of land situated at village Magdalla alongwith the map at Exh. 42. The distance of village Magdalla is 2 k.m. from the land in question, noted by the court. It was observed that the Reference Court was justified in relying on the said decision of village Magdalla alongwith other relevant details to award the compensation. The court took view that the decision of the reference court at Exh. 37 in awarding compensation for acquisition