JUDGMENT :

(Biren Vaishnav, J.)

1. All these First Appeals arise out of respective land reference cases which were decided by the Additional Senior Civil Judge at Deesa.

2. Facts in brief would indicate that the lands of the original claimants were acquired for a public purpose of spreading canal of Sujalam Sufalam by issuing notifications under Section 4 and Section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Officer by the award determined the market value of the land acquired at Rs.8.50 per square meters. On the claimants filing applications for enhancing, the Reference Court partly allowed the references and determined the market value of the land under acquisition at Rs.333.50 per square meters. These appeals have been preferred by the State of Gujarat for quashing the judgement and award of the Reference Court, whereas, the original claimants have filed cross-objections for enhancement of the claim.

3. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the respective parties that for the same village and the acquisition process, this Court decided a group of appeals and cross objections viz. First Appeal No.669 of 2019 and allied matters. After considering the evidence on record which is the same as the one in the present cases and after setting out in detail various decisions of the Supreme Court, a Division Bench of this Court by its CAV judgement dated 18.12.2023 held as under:

“14. We have considered the ratio laid down and the principle enunciated in the aforesaid decisions. It is found out that the principles governing determination of market value of lands acquired are well-settled and at the time of determination of the compensation, the Hon’ble Supreme Court issued certain directions as regard the the methods of valuation to be considered i.e. (1) opinion of experts, (2) the prices paid within a reasonable time in bonafide transactions of purchase or sale of the lands acquired or of the lands adjacent to those acquired and possessing similar advantages and (3) a number of years' purchase of the actual or immediately prospective profits of the lands acquired. Therefore valuation made by the Valuation Committee can be a valid basis for the Reference Court in deciding the valuation of the land for the purpose of awarding compensation, subject to any change in the nature of the land, character etc. If the impugned judgment and order of the Reference Court is examined in light of the aforesaid observations and discussions, it appears to us that there is no error committed by the Reference Court in relying upon the price fixed for allotment of the land for the public purpose of Spreading Canal of Sujalam Safalam, but the Reference Court has committed error in not considering the aspect that the valuation as was made of the land in question on 20.05.2004 and the said valuation is to be considered, keeping in view the principles, as observed herein above and the Reference Court has also totally lost sight of in not considering the deduction to be made in the nature of the land allotted for non-agricultural purpose and the acquisition of agricultural land in the present case.

15. From the facts of the case, as stated above, it is found out that it is the case of the original claimants that the Valuation Committee has fixed the valuation of the Government land on 20.05.2004, whereas the Notification under Section 4 of the Act was published on 30.06.2004 i.e. after the fixation of the valuation of the land by the Valuation Committee and, hence, they are entitled for additional compensation, for which, reliance is put upon the decision of this Court in case of Patel Haribhai Manilal (supra) as well as in case of Amaji Mohanji Thakore (supra) and though the aforesaid facts have been pointed out before the Reference Court, it has not been considered and 40% deduction was made instead of 20@, which the original claimants are entitled for. We have gone through the record and proceeding and found out that the Reference Court has considered the repo