ORDER

Leave granted.

2. We find two sets of appeals, one Civil Appeals Nos. 506-514 of 2001 filed by the claimants and the other Civil Appeal Nos. 515-523 of 2001 filed by the State, challenging the quantum of compensation. These appeals are directed against the judgment and order of the High Court dated 5th November, 1999, partly allowing the State appeal by further reducing the compensation by Rs. 10/- per square meter from the rate of compensation determined at Rs. 58/- by the referring court, by its judgment and Award dated 14th October, 1998. The question raised in these appeals filed by the claimants is:

"Whether the High Court was justified in further reducing the market value of the land in question by Rs. 10/- on the facts and circumstances of this case?"

3. The question raised in the State appeals is to the following effect:

"Whether High Court was right in relying upon Ext. 16 instead of placing reliance on Ext. 46, if it erred, had it not committed an error in not further reducing the rate of compensation to be one fixed by it."

4. As both these two sets of appeals raise the questions which are inter-linked, hence, are being disposed of by means of this common order.

5. Two main reasons on which the High Court has reduced the rate of compensation, one that the distance between the land covered by Ext. 16 and the land in the present case is five kilometers, secondly, the area of land under Ext. 16 is small, viz., about 2 hectares while the area covered in the instant case is large, viz., 20 hectares approximately.

6. In the present case, notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on the 1st August, 1991 with nine claimants, which is near the Viramgam town. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed the market value of the land at Rs. 4.50 per square meter against the claim for Rs.60 per square meter. It is not in dispute and is also recorded by the Land Acquisition Officer that neighbouring villages in that area are directly connected with Viramgam town for business, education, industries, etc. and there are ginning pressing factories, nationalised banks, godowns of Food Corporation, offices of Indian Oil Corporation, etc. He further records that the area has potentiality for further development.

7. Claimants aggrieved by the said fixation, filed reference under Section 18 of the Act. The submission made therein is also the submission before us. The submission is, the lands sought to be acquired are situate within 2 kms. from the two of Viramgam which adjoin the railway line in the north. Further, both the land under acquisition and the land under Ext. 16 are situated at an equal distance from the said Viramgam town. The acquisition of land under Ext. 16 is under Section 4 through notification dated 3rd January, 1991 while acquisition in the present case is later, through notification dated 1st August, 1991. The rate of land under Ext. 16 which became final, is Rs. 64/- per sq. mtr. The reference court, after considering Ext. 16 and taking into considerations fixed the rate of compensation at Rs. 58/- per sq. mtr. Aggrieved by this, the State filed appeals before the High Court. The High Court, as aforesaid, reduced the rate of compensation by Rs. 10/- per sq. mtr., thus fixed the compensation at the rate of Rs. 48/- per sq. mtr. Aggrieved by this, the claimants preferred the present aforesaid appeals while the State referred the appeals for further reduction.

8. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. As against reduction, learned Counsel for the claimants strongly relied on Ext. 16 as the land covered under it is of the same village, similarly situated and the acquisition of which was prior then the present acquisition, hence there is no justification for the High Court to reduce the quantum of compensation from Rs. 58/- per sq. mtr. to Rs. 48/- per sq. mtr. The submission is, this reduction by 25% is also not sustainable as High Court reduced it by treating the present acquisition being for a large chunk o