JUDGMENT :

Divyesh A. Joshi, J.

1. Since the issues raised in all the captioned writ applications are the same, those were heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.

2. For the sake of convenience, Special Civil Application No.818 of 2026 is treated as the lead matter.

3. By this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ applicant has prayed for the following reliefs;

“(A) Your Lordship may be pleased to admit and allow the present petition;

(B) Your Lordship may be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing and setting aside impugned order dated 30.09.2016 passed by the Hon’ble Additional District Judge, Bharuch, annexed herewith at Annexure-D to this petition, and allow the reference application of he petitioner to be filed under the provisions of Section 18 of the Act before the Competent Court having jurisdiction to decide the reference application of the petitioner on merits, in the interest of justice.

(C) Your Lordship may be pleased to pass such other order as may be deemed just and proper in the circumstances of the case”

4. Facts, in brief, giving rise to the filing of the present writ application may be summarized as under;

4.1 The writ applicant was the owner and occupant of the land at Block No.320 admeasuring Hec-Are-Sq. Mtrs. 0-17-54, situated at Moje Tundaj, Taluka: Jambusar, District: Bharuch.

4.2 The aforesaid land of the writ applicant was acquired by the Acquiring Authority for the purpose of constructing canal for Narmada Yojna of Village; Tundaj, Taluka: Jambusar, District: Bharuch.

4.3 Accordingly, notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act, 1894”) was issued on 24.10.1995 followed by Declaration under Section 6 of the Act, 1894 dated 29.08.1996.

4.4 Thereafter, an award came to be passed under Section 11 of the Act, 1894 on 30.08.1997, whereby the market value of the land was determined at the rate of Rs.165/- per Are.

4.5 Being aggrieved with the aforesaid award, the writ applicant preferred reference under Section 18 of the Act, 1894, along with the delay condonation application being Misc. Civil Application No.244 of 2002.

4.6 The aforesaid delay condonation application of the writ applicant came to be rejected by the Addl. District Judge vide order dated 30.09.2016 on the ground that there is no provision in the Land Acquisition Act to condone the delay.

4.7 Being aggrieved, the writ applicant is here before this Court with the present writ application.

5. Learned advocate Mr. Y.A. Bhambhani appearing for the writ applicant submits that the impugned award dated 30.08.1997 passed by the respondent No.2-Special Land Acquisition Officer qua the land of the writ applicant is unjust, unfair, unreasonable, suffers from vice of non-application of mind, and as such, deserves to be quashed and set aside. He further submits that the learned Judge has not properly evaluated and appreciated the evidence available on record in its true spirit and proper perspective. At the time of appreciating the materials available on record the learned Judge has committed grave error by not giving due weightage to the evidence available on record. Per contra, the learned Judge has given undue emphasis upon the other non-important documents and reached to the conclusion, which is not based upon sound principle of law and, therefore, the view adopted by the learned Judge is required to be quashed and set aside by allowing the present first appeals.

6. Learned advocate Mr. Bhambhani further submits that the Special Land Acquisition Officer has seriously erred in awarding the compensation on lower side without considering and evaluating all the relevant factors like location of the land, fertility of the land, crops prospect, the development of the village as well as sale deeds of the agricultural lands of the said village executed during the previous five years and, therefore, the rea