JUDGMENT :

J. C. DOSHI, J.

1. The caption first appeals, involving common question of law and facts, with the consent of learned advocates for both the parties, the first appeals are decided and disposed of by this common judgment.

2. In present First Appeals filed under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act (in short “the Act”), challenge is made to the judgment and award dated 15.5.2009 passed by the learned Reference Court, Mehsana in LAR Nos.1358 of 2003 to 1380 of 2003 (Main LAR No.1366 of 2003). It is a case where the land of village Mandali, Tal: Kheralu, Dist: Mehsana was acquired for the public purpose of Dharoi Canal work, whereby notification under section 4 of the Act was published on 3.9.1998 and notification under section 6 of the Act was published on 9.4.1999. In exercise of jurisdiction under section 11 of the Act, the Special Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation of Rs.3.70/- per sq mtr for irrigated land and Rs.3/- per sq mtr for non-irrigated land. The reference was preferred under section 18 of the Act, whereby the Reference Court, by impugned judgment and award, granted additional compensation of Rs.18.30/- per sq mtr over and above the compensation already awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. Being aggrieved, the claimants preferred present first appeals.

3. Heard learned advocate Mr. AV Prajapati for the claimants and learned AGP.

4. Learned advocate Mr. Prajapati mainly submitted that the learned Reference Court relied upon the judgment and award passed in regards to acquisition of land of village Lunva, in which, the judgment in regards to village Nortal was relied upon, whereby notification u/s 4 of the Act was published way back in 2.1.1986 and there was gap of 13 years in two notifications u/s 4 of the Act. He relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of General Manager, ONGC Vs. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel and another, (2008) 14 SCC 745 to contend that it is unsafe to rely upon judgment of previous acquisition if gap of notification u/s 4 of the Act is more than five years. He referred to para 15 thereof and submitted that in view that circumstances, the learned Reference Court has committed serious error much less error of understanding the facts and law.

4.1 Learned advocate Mr. Prajapati relied upon the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court rendered in First Appeal No.1627 of 2013 and allied matters and submitted that it was decision on acquisition of village Lunva, whereby notification u/s 4 and 6 of the Act had been published on 3.9.1998 and 9.4.1999 respectively. The learned Reference Court granted compensation of Rs.4.30/- per sq mtr for irrigated land and Rs.3.40/- per sq mtr for non-irrigated land. He would further submit that the Coordinate Bench of this Court in this set of appeals, relied upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in First Appeal No.2275 of 2011 and allied matters, whereby considering the acquisition of land of village Khatasana i.e. adjoining village for the very selfsame project of Dharoi canal, the Coordinate Bench of this Court decided the compensation of Rs.134.10/- per sq mtr deducting the amount already granted by the Special Land Acquisition Officer and the learned Reference Court and it would come to Rs.115.10 per sq mtr [Rs.134.10 – Rs.4.30 + Rs.14.70 = Rs.115.10]. He would further submit that the order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in First Appeal No.1627 of 2013 and allied matters has been accepted by the State Government and for that, he placed on record communication received from the State Government and therefore, he would submit that the decision arrived in the aforestated first appeal would govern the issue of present First Appeals since the notification is almost of same time period, land acquires is of the same village or adjoining village.

4.2 In addition to his argument, learned advocate Mr. Prajapati also submitted compilation, which is taken on record.

4.3 Upon above submiss