ORDER
J.M. Panchal, J.
1. The instant appeals filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 (the Act for short) read with Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, are directed against judgment and award dated May 3, 2003, rendered by the learned 2nd Extra Assistant Judge and Special Judge (L.A.R.),Ahmedabad (R),at Navrangpura, in Land Acquisition Cases No. 539 of 1998 to 546 of 1998, Land Acquisition Case No. 548/98, Land Acquisition Case No. 552 of 1998 and Land Acquisition Case No. 553 of 1998, by which the Reference Court has awarded an additional compensation of Rs. 21/- over and above the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer to the claimants at the rate of Rs. 1-80 paise per square meter. The Executive Engineer, Narmada Project, Division No. 3/5, Dholka, proposed to the State Government to acquire lands of village Shekhdi, Tal. Dholka, Dist : Ahmedabad, for the purpose of construction of Narmada canal. On scrutiny of the said proposal, the State Government was satisfied that the lands of village Shekhdi were likely to be needed for the said public purpose. Therefore, Notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued which was published in the Official Gazette on April, 22, 1993. The land owners whose lands were mentioned in the said notification were served with notices. They filed their objections against the proposed acquisition. After taking into consideration the objections filed by the land owners, the Special Land Acquisition Officer submitted his report to the State Government as contemplated by Section 5A(2) of the Act. On consideration of the said report, the State Government was satisfied that the lands specified in the notification published under Section 4(1) of the Act were needed for the public purpose of construction of Narmada Canal. Therefore, declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made which was also published in the Official Gazette on March 8, 1994. The interested persons were thereafter served with the notices under Section 9 of the Act for determination of the compensation. The claimants appeared before the Land Acquisition Officer and claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 50/- per square meter. However, having regard to the materials placed before him, the Special Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation to the claimants at the rate of Rs. 1-80 paise per square meter. The claimants were of the opinion that the offer made by the Special Land Acquisition Officer regarding compensation was inadequate, and therefore, they made written applications requiring the Special Land Acquisition Officer to refer the matter to the Court for the purpose of determination of the compensation. Accordingly, the references were made to the District Court at Ahmedabad which were numbered as noticed earlier.
2. On behalf of the claimants, witness Budhaji Jagaji Thakor was examined at Exh.32, whereas on behalf of the Executive Engineer, Narmada Project, Division No. 3/5, Dholka, witness Haribhai Ranchhodbhai Patel was examined at Exh.48. The witness examined on behalf of the claimants produced two previous awards i.e. (i) award of the Reference Court dated June 15, 1999, rendered in Land Reference Case No. 1200 of 1996 and (ii) award of the Reference Court dated August, 19, 1999, rendered in Land Acquisition Case 1781/96 at Exh.30 and 31 respectively. On scrutiny of the evidence adduced by the parties, the Reference Court was of the opinion that two previous awards produced by the claimants furnished good guidance for determining the market value of the lands acquired in the instant case. The Reference Court has, therefore, after placing reliance on the previous awards, awarded additional compensation at the rate of Rs. 21/- per square meter over and above compensation already awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer by judgment and award dated May 3, 2003, giving rise to the instant appeal.
3. This Court has heard Mrs.Krina P.Calla, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the appellant as well as Mr.Saurabh G.Amin,learned advocate for the claimant/claimants in each appeal at length and in great detail and has also considered the documents produced by the learned advocates for the perusal of the Court. From the record of the case it is evident that enhanced compensation was claimed by the claimants on the basis of two previous awards. Exh.30 is the award of the Reference Court rendered on June 15, 1999, in Land Reference Case No. 1200 of 1996. It indicates that various survey numbers of village Keliya Vasna were acquired pursuant to publication of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act in the Official Gazette on June 6, 1992, for the purpose of construction of Rajpur Branch Canal of Narmada Project. In the said case, the Special Land Acquisition Officer by his award had offered compensation to the claimants at the rate of Rs. 3-90 per square meter for irrigated land and Rs. 2-60 per square meter for non-irrigated land. Feeling aggrieved by the said award, references were sought. The Reference Court after considering the evidence adduced before it awarded compensation to the claimants at the rate of Rs. 24-90 paise per square meter. Again Exh.31 shows that it is an award rendered by the Reference Court on August 19, 1999, in Land Reference Case No. 1781 of 1996. It indicates that different survey numbers of village Chaloda were acquired pursuant to the publication of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act in the Official Gazette on June 6, 1992. The testimony of the witness examined by the claimants makes it very clear that the lands which were subject matter of two previous awards are just near the lands acquired in the instant case. His testimony further shows that all the villages are situated near highway. The evidence on record shows that Narmada Canal is coming from the side of sim of village Chaloda and then proceeds further towards village Shekhdi. The learned Judge of the Reference Court has recorded a finding that the lands which were subject matter of two previous awards and the lands acquired in the instant case are similar in all respects. It is well settled that awards rendered by reference Court in respect of similar lands and which have become final can be taken into consideration for determining the market value of the lands acquired from the adjoining area. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the learned Judge did not commit any error in placing reliance on two previous awards while determining the market value of the lands acquired in this case. This finding of fact is not challenged by the learned Assistant Government Pleader before this Court. Normally rise in price of the lands should be granted at the rate of 10% per annum if the notifications under Section 4(1) of the Act are not issued on the same date. Though in this case notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published on April 22, 1993 and in previous cases it was issued on June 6, 1992, the learned Judge has not granted any benefit to the claimants under the head of rise in prices of the land. On over all view of the matter, this Court is satisfied that just compensation has been awarded to the claimants and no ground is made by the learned Counsel for the appellant to interfere with the same in the instant appeals. The appeals which lack merit deserve to be dismissed and cannot be entertained.
4. For the foregoing reasons, the appeals fail and are summarily dismissed.