Allahabad High Court
N.O.I.D.A. vs Surendra Singh on 15 April, 2015
Bench: Sudhir Agarwal, Anil Kumar Sharma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
(A.F.R.)
Reserved on 25.3.2015
Delivered on 15.4.2015
Court No. - 34
1.Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 737 of 1995
Appellant :- N.O.I.D.A.
Respondent :- Surendra Singh
Counsel for Appellant :- U.S. Awasthi,A.K. Misra,Amit Manohar,Anil Yadav
Counsel for Respondent :- Shiv Sagar Singh, Rajesh Gupta,Utpal Chatterji,
2. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 384 of 1995
Appellant :- N.O.I.D.A.
Respondent :- Suresh and Others
Counsel for Appellant :- U.S. Awasthi, Ajai Kumar Misra, Amit Manohar, Anil Kumar Yadav, Anil Yadav, Ashwani Kumar Misra
Counsel for Respondent :- Shiv Sagar Singh
3. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 385 of 1995
Appellant :- N.O.I.D.A.
Respondent :- Baseer
Counsel for Appellant :- U.S. Awasthi,A.K. Misra, A.K. Yadav, Amit Manohar, Ashwani Kumar Mishra, S.G. Hasnain
Counsel for Respondent :- Shiv Sagar Singh
4. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 386 of 1995
Appellant :- N.O.I.D.A.
Respondent :- Khushi Ram
Counsel for Appellant :- U.S. Awasthi, A.K. Misra, A.K. Yadav, Amit Manohar, S.G. Hasnain
Counsel for Respondent :- Shiv Sagar Singh
5. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 387 of 1995
Appellant :- N.O.I.D.A.
Respondent :- Dhan Prakash
Counsel for Appellant :- U.S. Awasthi,A.K. Misra,A.K. Yadav,Amit Manohar
Counsel for Respondent :- Shiv Sagar Singh
6. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 388 of 1995
Appellant :- N.O.I.D.A.
Respondent :- Pritam Singh
Counsel for Appellant :- U.S. Awasthi, A.K. Misra, A.K. Yadav,Amit Manohar
Counsel for Respondent :- Ashutosh Srivastava, R.C. Tiwari, Shiv Sagar Singh
7. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 389 of 1995
Appellant :- N.O.I.D.A.
Respondent :- Jai Bhagwan
Counsel for Appellant :- U.S. Awasthi,A.K. Mishra,A.K. Yadav,Amit Manohar,Ashwini Kr. Mishra
Counsel for Respondent :- Shiv Sagar Singh
8.Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 390 of 1995
Appellant :- N.O.I.D.A.
Respondent :- Chandra Bhan
Counsel for Appellant :- U.S. Awasthi,A.K. Mishra,A.K. Yadav,Amit Manohar,Ashwini Kr. Mishra
Counsel for Respondent :- Shiv Sagar Singh
9.Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 391 of 1995
Appellant :- N.O.I.D.A.
Respondent :- Onkar Singh
Counsel for Appellant :- U.S. Awasthi,A. Yadav,A.K. Mishra,Amit Manohar
Counsel for Respondent :- Shiv Sagar Singh
10. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 392 of 1995
Appellant :- N.O.I.D.A.
Respondent :- Om Prakash
Counsel for Appellant :- U.S. Awasthi,A. Yadav,A.K. Mishra,A.K. Yadav,Amit Manohar
Counsel for Respondent :- B.D. Shukla, Shiv Sagar Singh
11. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 393 of 1995
Appellant :- N.O.I.D.A.
Respondent :- Trilok Chand
Counsel for Appellant :- U.S. Awasthi,A.K. Mishra,A.K.Yadav,A.Yadav,Amit Manohar
Counsel for Respondent :- Shiv Sagar Singh
12.Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 399 of 1995
Appellant :- N.O.I.D.A.
Respondent :- Gopi Chand
Counsel for Appellant :- U.S. Awasthi, A.K. Misra,A.K. Yadav,Amit Manohar
Counsel for Respondent :- Shiv Sagar Singh,
14.Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 400 of 1995
Appellant :- N.O.I.D.A.
Respondent :- Gopal Singh
Counsel for Appellant :- U.S. Awasthi,A.K. Misra,A.K. Yadav,Amit Manohar
Counsel for Respondent :- Shiv Sagar Singh,
15. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 401 of 1995
Appellant :- N.O.I.D.A.
Respondent :- Puneet Kotra
Counsel for Appellant :- U.S. Awasthi,A.K. Misra,A.K. Yadav,Amit Manohar
Counsel for Respondent :- M.D. Singh Shekhar, Shiv Sagar Singh
15.Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 420 of 1995
Appellant :- New Okhla Industrial Development Authority
Respondent :- Braham Dutt & Others
Counsel for Appellant :- U.S. Awasthi,A.K. Yadav,Ajai Kumar Misra,Amit Manohar,Ashwani Kumar Misra
Counsel for Respondent :- Shiv Sagar Singh
16.Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 421 of 1995
Appellant :- New Okhla Industrial D. A.
Respondent :- Gopal Singh & Others
Counsel for Appellant :- U.S. Awasthi,A.K. Yadav,Ajai Kumar Misra,Amit Manohar,Ashwani Kumar Misra
Counsel for Respondent :- Shiv Sagar Singh
17. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 422 of 1995
Appellant :- Noida
Respondent :- Baleshwar Dayal And Another
Counsel for Appellant :- U.S. Awasthi,A.K. Misra,A.K. Yadav,Amit Manohar
Counsel for Respondent :- Shiv Sagar Singh
18. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 423 of 1995
Appellant :- Noida
Respondent :- Satpal
Counsel for Appellant :- U.S. Awasthi,A.K. Misra,A.K. Yadav,Amit Manohar
Counsel for Respondent :- Shiv Sagar Singh, M.D. Singh Shekher, Mohd. Islam
19. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 432 of 1995
Appellant :- Noida
Respondent :- Ramesh Chand
Counsel for Appellant :- U.S. Awasthi,A.K. Misra,A.K. Yadav,Amit Manohar,Aswani K. Misra
Counsel for Respondent :- Shiv Sagar Singh
20. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 433 of 1995
Appellant :- New Okhla Industrial Development Authority
Respondent :- Harish Chandra & Others
Counsel for Appellant :- U.S.Awasthi,A.K. Yadav,Ajai Kumar Misra,Amit Manohar,Ashwani Kumar Misra
Counsel for Respondent :- Shiv Sagar Singh
21.Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 437 of 1995
Appellant :- Noida
Respondent :- Ramesh Chand
Counsel for Appellant :- U.S.Awasthi,A.K. Yadav,A.K.Misra,Ajay Sharma,Amit Manohar
Counsel for Respondent :- Shiv Sagar Singh
22. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 438 of 1995
Appellant :- Noida
Respondent :- Ramesh Chand
Counsel for Appellant :- U.S.Awasthi,A.K. Yadav,A.K.Misra,Ajay Misra,Ajay Shamra,Amit Manohar
Counsel for Respondent :- Shiv Sagar Singh
23.Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 439 of 1995
Appellant :- Noida
Respondent :- Sandip Bhatia
Counsel for Appellant :- U.S.Aswathi,A.K. Misra,A.K. Yadav,Ajay Sharma,Amit Manohar
Counsel for Respondent :- Shiv Sagar Singh
24. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 450 of 1995
Appellant :- Noida
Respondent :- Harkesh
Counsel for Appellant :- Ajai Sharma,A.K.Mishra,Amit Manohar,U.S.Aswasthi
Counsel for Respondent :- Shiv Sagar Singh,S.G.Hasnain
25. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 451 of 1995
Appellant :- Noida
Respondent :- Vijai Singh
Counsel for Appellant :- Ajai Sharma,A.K.Misra,Ajay Kr.Sharma,Amit Manohar,U.S.Awasthi
Counsel for Respondent :- S.G.Hasnain, Shiv Sagar Singh
26.Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 452 of 1995
Appellant :- N.O.I.D.A.
Respondent :- Ishwar Dayal & Others
Counsel for Appellant :- U.S. Awasthi,A.K. Yadav,Ajai Kumar Misra,Ajai Sharma,Amit Manohar
Counsel for Respondent :- Shiv Sagar Singh, S.G. Hasnain
27. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 453 of 1995
Appellant :- Noida
Respondent :- Om Prakash
Counsel for Appellant :- Ajai Sharma,A.K. Misra,Ajay Kumar Misra,Amit Manohar,Ashwani Kumar Misra,U.S. Awasthi
Counsel for Respondent :- S.G.Hasnain,Shiv Sagar Singh
28.Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 454 of 1995
Appellant :- Noida
Respondent :- Devendra Singh
Counsel for Appellant :- Ajai Sharma,Ajay Kumar Misra,Amit Manohar,U.S.Awasthi
Counsel for Respondent :- S.G.Hasnain,Shiv Sagar Singh
29.Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 455 of 1995
Appellant :- N.O.I.D.A.
Respondent :- Ishwar Kumar & Others
Counsel for Appellant :- U.S. Awasthi,A.K. Misra,A.K. Yadav,Ajay Sharma,Amit Manohar
Counsel for Respondent :- Shiv Sagar Singh, S.G. Hasnain
30. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 470 of 1995
Appellant :- Noida
Respondent :- Ishwar Kumar
Counsel for Appellant :- Ajai Sharma,Ajay Kumar Misra,Amit Manohar,U.S.Awasthi
Counsel for Respondent :- S.G.Hasnain, Shiv Sagar Singh
31.Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 484 of 1995
Appellant :- New Okhla Industrial Development Authority
Respondent :- Teke Chand And Others
Counsel for Appellant :- U.S. Awasthi,Ajai Kumar Mishra,Ajay Sharma,Amit Manohar,Anil Kumar Yadav
Counsel for Respondent :- Shiv Sagar Singh
32.Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 485 of 1995
Appellant :- New Okhla Industrial Development Authority
Respondent :- Sanjay & Others
Counsel for Appellant :- U.S. Awasthi,A.K. Yadav,Ajai Kumar Mishra,Ajay Sharma,Amit Manohar,Ashwani Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Respondent :- Shiv Sagar Singh
33. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 486 of 1995
Appellant :- New Okhla Industrial Development Authority
Respondent :- Ishwar Kumar & Others
Counsel for Appellant :- U.S. Awasthi,Ajai Kumar Mishra,Ajay Sharma,Amit Manohar,Anil Kumar Yadav,Ashwani Kr.Misra
Counsel for Respondent :- Shiv Sagar Singh
34.Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 487 of 1995
Appellant :- New Okhla Industrial Development Authority
Respondent :- Ramavtar & Others
Counsel for Appellant :- U.S. Awasthi,Ajai Kumar Mishra,Ajay Shamra,Amit Manohar,Anil Kumar Yadav
Counsel for Respondent :- Shiv Sagar Singh
35. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 488 of 1995
Appellant :- New Okhla Industrial Development Authority
Respondent :- Raj Pal & Others
Counsel for Appellant :- U.S. Awasthi,Ajai Kumar Mishra,Ajay Sharma,Amit Manohar, Anil Kumar Yadav
Counsel for Respondent :- Shiv Sagar Singh, R.N.Singh, Ravi Kant, S.K. Garg, S.N.Singh
36.Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 490 of 1995
Appellant :- Noida
Respondent :- Smt. Ved Kumari
Counsel for Appellant :- U.S. Awasthi,A.K. Misra,A.K. Yadav,Ajay Sharma,Amit Manohar
Counsel for Respondent :- Shiv Sagar Singh
37. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 492 of 1995
Appellant :- New Okhla Industrial Development Authority
Respondent :- Shanti Devi & Others
Counsel for Appellant :- U.S. Awasthi,A.K. Misra,A.K. Yadav,Ajai Kumar Mishra,Ajay Sharma,Amit Manohar
Counsel for Respondent :- Shiv Sagar Singh
38. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 493 of 1995
Appellant :- Noida
Respondent :- Devendra & Others
Counsel for Appellant :- U.S. Awasthi,A.K. Misra,A.K. Yadav,Ajay Sharma,Amit Manohar
Counsel for Respondent :- Shiv Sagar Singh
39.Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 494 of 1995
Appellant :- New Okhla Industrial D. A.
Respondent :- Ishwar Kumar & Others
Counsel for Appellant :- U.S. Awasthi, A.K. Misra,A.K. Yadav,Ajai Kumar Mishra,Ajay Sharma,Amit Manohar, Ashwani Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Respondent :- Shiv Sagar Singh
40.Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 566 of 1995
Appellant :- Noida
Respondent :- Ram Niwar
Counsel for Appellant :- A.K.Yadav,A.K.Misra,Amit Manohar,U.S.Awasthi
Counsel for Respondent :- Shiv Sagar Singh, R.N.Singh,Ravikant,S.K.Garg,S.N.Singh
41. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 567 of 1995
Appellant :- Noida
Respondent :- Ramlal
Counsel for Appellant :- U.S.Awasthi,A.K.Misra,Ajai Sharma,Amit Manohar
Counsel for Respondent :- M.D.Singh Shukhla,Shiv Sagar Singh
42.Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 570 of 1995
Appellant :- Noida
Respondent :- Hari Singh
Counsel for Appellant :- A.K.Yadav,A.K.Misra, Amit Manohar,U.S.Awasthi
Counsel for Respondent :- Shiv Sagar Singh, R.N.Singh,Ravikant,S.Dhulia,S.K.Garg,S.N.Singh
43.Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 571 of 1995
Appellant :- Noida
Respondent :- Onkar Singh
Counsel for Appellant :- Anil Kumar Yadav,A.K.Misra,Amit Manohar,U.S.Awasthi
Counsel for Respondent :- Shiv Sagar Singh
44.Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 572 of 1995
Appellant :- Noida
Respondent :- Atar Singh
Counsel for Appellant :- U.S.Awasthi,A. K. Yadav,A.K.Misra,Ajai Sharma,Amit Manohar
Counsel for Respondent :- Shiv Sagar Singh
45. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 573 of 1995
Appellant :- Noida
Respondent :- Navin Singh
Counsel for Appellant :- U.S.Awasthi,A.K.Misra,Ajai Sharma,Amit Manohar,Ashwani Kumar Misra
Counsel for Respondent :- Shiv Sagar Singh
46. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 574 of 1995
Appellant :- Noida
Respondent :- Ishwar Dayal
Counsel for Appellant :- U.S. Awasthi,A.K. Misra,A.K. Yadav,Ajay Sharma,Amit Manohar,Ashwani Kumar Misra
Counsel for Respondent :- Shiv Sagar Singh
47. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 582 of 1995
Appellant :- New Okhla Industrial Development Authority
Respondent :- Raj Kumar And Others
Counsel for Appellant :- U.S.Awasthi,Ajai Kumar Mishra,Amit Manohar,Ashwani Kr. Misra
Counsel for Respondent :- Shiv Sagar Singh,Alok Kr. Srivastava
48. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 694 of 1995
Appellant :- N.O.I.D.A.
Respondent :- Ishwar Dayal And Others
Counsel for Appellant :- U.S. Awasthi,A.K. Misra,A.K. Yadav,Ajay Sharma,Amit Manohar
Counsel for Respondent :- N.Lal
49. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 695 of 1995
Appellant :- N.O.I.D.A.
Respondent :- Kusum Rani And Others
Counsel for Appellant :- U.S. Awasthi,A.K. Yadav,Amit Manohar
Counsel for Respondent :- Shiv Sagar Singh
50. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 696 of 1995
Appellant :- N.O.I.D.A.
Respondent :- Jitendra Kumar And Others
Counsel for Appellant :- U.S. Awasthi,A.K. Misra,A.K. Yadav,Ajay Sharma,Amit Manohar
Counsel for Respondent :- Shiv Sagar Singh
51. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 697 of 1995
Appellant :- N.O.I.D.A.
Respondent :- Lekhu Ram And Others
Counsel for Appellant :- U.S. Awasthi,A.K. Misra,A.K. Yadav,Ajay Sharma,Amit Manohar
Counsel for Respondent :- Shiv Sagar Singh,S.G. Hasnian
52. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 701 of 1995
Appellant :- N.O.I.D.A.
Respondent :- Ganga Pd. And Others
Counsel for Appellant :- U.S. Awasthi,A.K. Misra,A.K. Yadav,Ajay Sharma,Amit Manohar
Counsel for Respondent :- Shiv Sagar Singh
53. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 705 of 1995
Appellant :- N.O.I.D.A.
Respondent :- Hemanti And Others
Counsel for Appellant :- U.S. Awasthi,A.K. Misra,A.K. Yadav,Ajay Sharma,Amit Manohar
Counsel for Respondent :- Shiv Sagar Singh
54. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 706 of 1995
Appellant :- N.O.I.D.A.
Respondent :- Veena Seth And Others
Counsel for Appellant :- U.S. Awasthi,A.K. Misra,A.K. Yadav,Ajay Sharma,Amit Manohar
Counsel for Respondent :- Shiv Sagar Singh
55. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 707 of 1995
Appellant :- N.O.I.D.A.
Respondent :- Hari Singh And Others
Counsel for Appellant :- U.S. Awasthi,A.K. Misra,A.K. Yadav,Ajay Sharma,Amit Manohar
Counsel for Respondent :- Shiv Sagar Singh
56. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 708 of 1995
Appellant :- N.O.I.D.A.
Respondent :- Moola And Others
Counsel for Appellant :- U.S. Awasthi,A.K. Misra,A.K. Yadav,Ajay Sharma,Amit Manohar
Counsel for Respondent :- Shiv Sagar Singh
57. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 709 of 1995
Appellant :- N.O.I.D.A.
Respondent :- Amichand And Others
Counsel for Appellant :- U.S. Awasthi,A.K. Misra,A.K. Yadav,Ajay Sharma,Amit Manohar
Counsel for Respondent :- Shiv Sagar Singh
58.Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 424 of 1995
Appellant :- Noida
Respondent :- Majid
Counsel for Appellant :- U.S. Awasthi,A.K. Misra,A.K. Yadav,Amit Manohar
Counsel for Respondent :- Shiv Sagar Singh
59. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 724 of 1995
Appellant :- N.O.I.D.A.
Respondent :- Dhan Pal Singh Tyagi
Counsel for Appellant :- U.S.Awasthi,A.K.Misra,A.K.Yadav,Ajai Sharma,Amit Manohar
60.Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 727 of 1995
Appellant :- N.O.I.D.A.
Respondent :- Suresh Kumar
Counsel for Appellant :- U.S.Awasthi,A.K. Misra,A.K. Yadav,Ajay Sharma,Amit Manohar
Counsel for Respondent :- Shiv Sagar Singh
61. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 728 of 1995
Appellant :- N.O.I.D.A.
Respondent :- Ami Chand
Counsel for Appellant :- U.S.Awasthi,A.K. Misra,A.K. Yadav,Ajay Sharma,Amit Manohar
Counsel for Respondent :- R.N. Singh,Shiv Sagar Singh
62. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 729 of 1995
Appellant :- N.O.I.D.A.
Respondent :- Ami Chand
Counsel for Appellant :- U.S.Awasthi,A.K. Misra,A.K. Yadav,Ajay Sharma,Amit Manohar
Counsel for Respondent :- Shiv Sagar Singh,R.N. Singh,
63. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 730 of 1995
Appellant :- N.O.I.D.A.
Respondent :- Pooran
Counsel for Appellant :- U.S.Awasthi,A.K. Misra,A.K. Yadav,Ajay Sharma,Amit Manohar
Counsel for Respondent :- Shiv Sagar Singh
64.Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 731 of 1995
Appellant :- N.O.I.D.A.
Respondent :- Rameshwar
Counsel for Appellant :- U.S.Awasthi,A.K. Misra,A.K. Yadav,Ajay Sharma,Amit Manohar
Counsel for Respondent :- Shiv Sagar Singh
65. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 52 of 1997
Appellant :- New Okhla Industries Development Authority, Noida
Respondent :- Bharat Bhushan & Others
Counsel for Appellant :- U.S. Awasthi,Ajai Kr. Mishra,Ajai Sharma,Amit Manohar,Ashwani Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Respondent :- Shiv Sagar Singh
66. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 699 of 1995
Appellant :- N.O.I.D.A.
Respondent :- Pankaj Rai Kotra And Others
Counsel for Appellant :- U.S. Awasthi,A.K. Misra,A.K. Yadav,Ajay Sharma,Amit Manohar
Counsel for Respondent :- Shiv Sagar Singh,M.D. Singh Shekhar
67.Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 489 of 1995
Appellant :- New Okhla Industrial Development Authority
Respondent :- Sipattar & Others
Counsel for Appellant :- U.S. Awasthi,A.K. Misra,A.K. Yadav,Ajai Mishra,Ajay Sharma
Counsel for Respondent :- Shiv Sagar Singh
68. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 698 of 1995
Appellant :- N.O.I.D.A.
Respondent :- Pradeep Kr. And Others
Counsel for Appellant :- U.S. Awasthi,A.K. Misra,A.K. Yadav,Ajay Sharma,Amit Manohar
Counsel for Respondent :- Shiv Sagar Singh,Gauri Singh,S.Rathi,S.G. Hasnian
69. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 700 of 1995
Appellant :- N.O.I.D.A.
Respondent :- Attar Singh And Others
Counsel for Appellant :- U.S. Awasthi,A.K. Misra,A.K. Yadav,Ajay Sharma,Amit Manohar
Counsel for Respondent :- Shiv Sagar Singh
70. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 702 of 1995
Appellant :- N.O.I.D.A.
Respondent :- Devendra And Others
Counsel for Appellant :- U.S. Awasthi, A.K. Misra, A.K. Yadav,Ajay Sharma, Amit Manohar
Counsel for Respondent :- Shiv Sagar Singh,S.G. Hasnain
71. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 53 of 1997
Appellant :- New Okhla Industries Development Authority, Noida
Respondent :- Ram Nath & Others
Counsel for Appellant :- U.S. Awasthi,A.K. Mishra,Ajai Sharma,Amit Manohar,Ashwani Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Respondent :- Shiv Sagar Singh
72. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 491 of 1995
Appellant :- New Okhla Industrial Development Authority
Respondent :- Hari Dutta & Others
Counsel for Appellant :- U.S. Awasthi,A.K. Misra, A.K. Yadav,Ajay Sharma, Amit Manohar
Counsel for Respondent :- Shiv Sagar Singh
73. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 703 of 1995
Appellant :- N.O.I.D.A.
Respondent :- Devendra Singh And Others
Counsel for Appellant :- U.S. Awasthi,A.K. Misra,A.K. Yadav,Ajay Sharma,Amit Manohar
Counsel for Respondent :- Shiv Sagar Singh
74. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 704 of 1995
Appellant :- N.O.I.D.A.
Respondent :- Chhajjoo And Others
Counsel for Appellant :- U.S. Awasthi,A.K. Misra,A.K. Yadav,Ajay Sharma, Amit Manohar
Counsel for Respondent :- Shiv Sagar Singh
75. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 848 of 2014
Appellant :- Pooran
Respondent :- State Of U.P.& Others
Counsel for Appellant :- T.A.Khan, Faheem Ahmad, R.P. Ganguli
Counsel for Respondent :- S.C.
76.Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 693 of 1998
Appellant :- Har Saran
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Faheem Ahamad,P.R. Ganguli,S.G. Hasnain, Shiv Sagar Singh,T.A. Khan
Counsel for Respondent :- S.C.
77.Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 698 of 1998
Appellant :- Mangoo Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P.& Others
Counsel for Appellant :- T.A. Khan,Fahim Ahmad,P.R. Ganguly,S.G. Hasnain,Shiv Sagar Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- S.C.
78.Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 694 of 1998
Appellant :- Tripati
Respondent :- State Of U.P.& Others
Counsel for Appellant :- T.A.Khan,Fahim Ahmad,S.G. Hasnain,Shiv Sagar Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- S.C.
79.Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 695 of 1998
Appellant :- Mangoo Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P.& Others
Counsel for Appellant :- T.A.Khan,S.G. Hasnain,Shiv Sagar Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- S.C.
80. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 437 of 1997
Appellant :- Ram Pal
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Another
Counsel for Appellant :- Faheem Ahmad,Shiv Sagar Singh,T.A.Khan
81. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 879 of 2014
Appellant :- Ami Chand And Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Another
Counsel for Appellant :- Shiv Sagar Singh, Ved Prakash Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- S.C.
82.Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 522 of 2009
Appellant :- Pradeep Kumar
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Another
Counsel for Appellant :- Shiv Sagar Singh,
Counsel for Respondent :- S.C.
83. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 486 of 2014
Appellant :- Ishwar Kumar And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others
Counsel for Appellant :-Shiv Sagar Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- S.C.,Amit Manohar
84.Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 750 of 2014
Appellant :- Ishwar Kumar & Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Another
Counsel for Appellant :- Shiv Sagar Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- S.C.
85.Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 919 of 2014
Appellant :- Ishwar Dayal & Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Another
Counsel for Appellant :- Shiv Sagar Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- S.C.,Amit Manohar
86.Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 1002 of 1999
Appellant :- Ishwar Dayal And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P.& Others
Counsel for Appellant :- M.D.Singh Shekhar,
Counsel for Respondent :- A.K. Mishra,Amit Manohar
87.Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 1009 of 2002
Appellant :- Jai Bhagwan
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Another
Counsel for Appellant :- Faheem Ahamad,S.G.Hasnain,Shiv Sagar Singh,T.A.Khan
Counsel for Respondent :- S.C.,Amit Manohar
88 Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 539 of 2002
Appellant :- Om Prakash
Respondent :- State Of U.P.& Others
Counsel for Appellant :- T.A.Khan,Faheem Ahmad
Counsel for Respondent :- S.C.
89. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 488 of 1993
Appellant :- Harkesh
Respondent :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Appellant :- P.A. Khan, Faheem Ahmad, P.R. Ganguli
Counsel for Respondent :- S.C.
90.Case :- FIRST APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 363 of 1999
Appellant :- Atar Singh & Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Surendra Tiwari,Shiv Sagar Singh
91.Case :- FIRST APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 491 of 1993
Appellant :- Dhan Prakash
Respondent :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Appellant :- Shiv Sagar Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- S.C.
92.Case :- FIRST APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 520 of 1993
Appellant :- Raghubar Dayal & Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Another
Counsel for Appellant :- Shiv Sagar Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- S.C.
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.
Hon'ble Anil Kumar Sharma,J.
(Delivered by Hon. Sudhir Agarwal, J.)
1. These appeals (except First Appeals No. 693 of 1998, 694 of 1998, 695 of 1998, 698 of 1998, 539 of 2002 and 750 of 2014) under Section 54 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred as the 'Act, 1894') have arisen from a common award dated 24.3.1993 passed by Smt. Sadhna Chaudhary, VIII Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad under Section 26 of the Act, declaring rate of compensation for the land acquired at the rate of Rs.108/- per square yard. The Reference Court has also directed that the claimants shall be entitled to solatium at the rate of 30% and the interest as provided in the Act, 1894.
2. In First Appeals No.693 of 1998, 694 of 1998, 695 of 1998, 698 of 1998, 539 of 2002, and 750 of 2014, Ishwar Kumar and another vs. State of U.P. and Another, the award is dated 30.4.1993 passed by District Judge, Ghaziabad declaring compensation at the rate of Rs.106/- per square yard. In respect of other aspects, i.e., 30% solatium etc. it is the same as provided in award in other connected matters.
3. In some of the matters we find that restoration applications are pending since appeals were dismissed in default. In some, one or more parties have died and substitution applications are pending. Respective counsel for parties stated at the Bar that they have no objection in allowing either restoration of cases which have been dismissed in default or substitution where the appellant/claimant-respondents or any of the parties are no more. In such circumstances, we allow all these applications. The appeals which were dismissed in default, shall stand restored. The substitution shall be carried out during the course of the day.
4. By this judgment we are adjudicating 92 appeals out of which 74 appeals have come up at the instance of New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'NOIDA') for which land was acquired by State of U.P. Remaining 18 appeals have come up at the instance of claimants/tenure holders whose land have been acquired for planned industrial development. The following table would depict the number of plots, area acquired, LAR number, first appeal number, first name of the claimant, compensation given by Special Land Acquisition Officer, Ghaziabad (hereinafter referred to as the 'SLAO') and the compensation awarded by Reference Court:
Sl. no.
LAR No. Appeal no.
Khata No. / Khasra No. Area Bigha/ Square Yard First name of the owner Compensation awarded by SLAO Court 1 1/1992 737/95 104, 704 18-10-13- 1-12-6-10 20-2-19-10/60940 Surendra Singh 5242165-07 6582596-50 2 16/1992 384/1995 2616, 2530, 2531 9-3-0 1-15-0 1-15-0 2-18-0/ 8771.05 Suresh 2,18,912-91 9,47,430-00 3 30/1992 385/1995 1257, 1258 0-17-0 1-14-0 2-11-0/ 7712.475 Baseer 283822-00 833085-00 4 87/1992 386/1995 1254/1, 2517/2, 2526, 2527/2, 2494/2 0-5-3 0-15-4 0-5-2 0-0-3 2-15-0 4-12-0/ 13912.7 Khusi Ram 5,11,111-27 15,02,820-00 5 130/92 387/1995 (491)/ 93 2174, 2176, 2177, 2178, 2201, 2226, 2228, 2832, 2234, 2265, 2331, 2214, 2236 13-17-5/ 41927.13 Dhan Prakash, 15,37,362-94 45,28,878-60 6 115/92 388/1995 2523, 2524, 2514, 2510/2, 1261 0-18-0 0-18-0 1-0-0 1-8-0 1-2-0 5-6-0/ 16029.85 Preetam Singh 25,88,070-28 17,31,510-00 7 91/1992 389/95 1009/02 2563 3-0-0/ 9073.50 Jay Bhagwan 3,32,636-14 9,80,100-00 8 126/92 390/1995 2549 2-14-0/ 8166.15 Chandra Bhan 1,06,440-42 8,82,010-00 9 125/92 391/1995 1240, 2475, 2483, 2486 10-10-0 1-3- 3 4-4-10 1-12-0 16-10-13/ 50002.54 Onkar Singh 48,59,938-24 54,01,167-60 10 124/92 392/1995 (499)/ 93 2539, 2541 1-10-4 2-10-2 4-6-0/ 13005.35 Om Prakash, 4,77,434-96 14,04,810-00 11 248/92 393/1995 2205, 2438, 2447, 2450, 24641, 2521, 2524, 2442, 2436, 2437 0-15-3 1-10-3 0-10-3 0-15-3 1-15-3 3-5-2 0-10-2 0-15-2 0-5-1 11-6-0/ 34176.85 Trilok Chand, 12,54,314-56 37,02,510-00 12 105/92 399/1995 2481, 1281 1-6-0 1-13-0 2-19-0/ 8922.275 Gopi Chand 6,57,602-20 9,63,765-00 13 46/1992 400/1995 2231 0-8-0/ 1209.80 Gopal Singh 44,497-29 1,30,680-00 14 128/92 401/1995 1266 1-14-10/ 5292. 84 Puneet Kotra 1,72,894-98 5,55,350-00 15 108/92 420/1995 1246/2, 1247/2, 2487, 2488, 2515, 2516/1, 2517/1, 2572/, 2573 0-5-2 0-10-2 2-5-2 0-10-0 1-0-2 0-10-3 0-11-3 0-0-2 1-10-3 7-19-0/ 24044.78 Brahma-dutt 4,82,844-85 25,97,184-00 16 85/1992 421/1995 2179/1, 2180, 2201, 2215, 2224, 2231, 2439, 2463/1, 2536, 2536 2-0-0 1-3-0 1-15-1 2-0-0 0-15-6 0-5-3 1-15-2 1-5-12 1-0-10 1-2-0 12-1-15/ 36558.64 Gopal Singh 1347120-30 39,48,986-10 17 24/1992 422/1995 2565 3-10-0/ 10585.75 Baleshwar Dayal 3,90,870-00 11,43,450-00 18 90/1992 423/1995 21, 178, 69, 253, 251, 669, 353, 424 1-14-10 1-17-6 2-6-0 6-6-10 1-16-10 16-18-0 7-19-01-7-0 34-14-16/ 105071.13 Satpal 35,70,943-90 1,13,49,558-00 19 09/1992 432/1995 2596, 2599, 2594, 2590 1-8-0 1-1-0 1-10-0 0-8-0 4-7-0/ 13156.57 Ramesh Chand 4,82,419-00 14,21,145-00 20 82/1992 433/1995 653/ 2563 3-4-0/ 9678.4 Harish Chand 3,55,978-28 10,45,440-00 21 13/1992 437/1995 2489 0-13-5/ 2003.73 Ramesh Chand 3,665-41 10,800-00 22 103/92 438/1995 2481, 2491, 2598 1-4-0 0-3-0 1-4-0 2-11-0/ 7712.475 Ramesh Chand 7,36,113-03 8,33,085-00 23 133/92 439/1995 609/ 1202, 1204 1-16-0 0-5-0 2-1-0/ 6200.225 Sandeep Bhatia 2,27,835-96 3,43,035-00 24 12/1992 450/1995 (488)/ 93 2522, 2577 3-4-0 1-8-0 4-12-0/ 13912.7 Harkesh 5,11,111-27 15,02,820-00 25 80/1992 451/1995 1217, 1218, 1219, 2199, 2200, 2516, 2199 0-11-1/3 0-3-10 0-12-2 0-16-0 2-8-0 0-10-0 1-12-04-2- 4869.44 Vijai Singh 1,54,424-83 13,39,470-00 26 92/1992 452/1995 (496)/ 93 1254/2, 1255/ 0-11-0/ 1663.47 Ishwar Dayal 63,158-14 1,79,685-00 27 29/1992 453/1995 1168, 12622, 1268 1-4-0 3-0-0 0-8-0 4-12-0/ 13912.7 Om Prakash 5,10,139-27 15,02,820-00 28 134/92 454/1995 277/ 1264 1-8-0/ 4234.258 Devendra Singh 1,56,348-00 4,57,280-00 29 56/1992` 455/1995 1532 100 Sq. Yard Ishwar 6,865-41 10,800-00 30 132/92 470/1995 2569 3-8-14/ 10389.15 Ishwar Kumar 3,80,914-55 11,22,214-50 31 14/1992 484/1995 2567 1-1-0/ 3175.725 Tek Chand 1,17,261-00 3,43,035-00 32 116/92 485/1995 2441 0-16-0/ 2419.60 Sanjay 79,882-07 2,61,360-00 33 109/92 486/1995 2616 1-3-0/ 3478.175 Ishwar Kumar 1,23,464-57 3,75,705-00 34 31/192 487/1995 2202, 2570, 2566 0-0-3 0-5-3 0-5-4 1-7-0/ 4083.075 Ram Autar 1,10,878-72 3,26,700-00 35 27/1992 488/1995 1239 2-11-0/ 7712.475 Raj Pal 5,30,730-72 8,33,085-00 36 139/92 490/1995 1218 100 Sq. Yard Smt Ved Kumari 3,665-41 10,800-00 37 23/1992 492/1995 2582 0-18-0/ 2722.05 Smt. Shanti Devi 99,960-00 2,94,030-00 38 136/92 493/1995 279/ 1267/2 2-6-16/ 7077.33 Devendra Singh 6,13,008-19 7,52,716-80 39 122/92 494/195 2495 2-2-0/ 6351.45 Ishwar Kumar 2,33,307-00 6,86,070-00 40 110/92 566/95 28/ 1249, 1250 1-7-0 1-7-10 2-12-10/ 7939.313 Ram Niwas 1,71,984-85 8,57,587-50 41 104/92 567/1995 437/1997 740/ 2563/3 3-4-0/ 9678.4 Ram Lal 3,54,884-78 10,40,040-00 42 15/1992 570/1995 104/ 126012, 2475, 2483, 2486 10-12-0 1-3-0 2-4-0 4-11-3 18-10-13/ 56051.55 Hari Singh 2,79,222-83 60,54,567-60 43 88/1992 571/1995 105 1267/2, 2483 1-13-17 0---2--0 1-15-17/ 5421.41 Onkar Singh 21,740-84 5,85,609-75 44 21/1992 572/1995 104/ 1260/2, 2465, 2483, 2486 0-12-10 1--3--0 2-4-10 1-14-0 18-13-13/ 56505.22 Atar Singh 79,222-85 60,54,567-60 45 25/1992 573/1995 2570 2-5-0/ 6805.12 Nain Singh 2,l49,537-60 7,35,075-00 46 138/92 574/1995 1002/99 71/ 2220, 2221 3-15-4 3-15-4 7-18-0/ 23893.55 Ishwar Dayal 8,76,695-13 25,80,930-00 47 98/1992 582/1995 1239, 1240 1-3-0 2-9-0 3-12-0/ 10888.2 Ram Kumar 6,29,563-37 11,76,120-00 48 26/1992 695/1995 170/ 2470, 2471
-
0-4-0 0-2-120-6-12/ 19961.7 Kusum Rani 36,654-12 8,33,085-00 49 5/1992 696/1995 225 0-10-3/ 1355 Jitendra Kumar 72,095-46 1,65,800-00 50 106/92 697/1995 1220, 1221, 2199, 2535, 2545 0-5-4 1-0-4 0-5-0 1-0-4 0-10-3 3-15-0/ 11341.88 Lakhi Ram 4,70,545-17 12,25,125-00 51 112/92 701/1995 725 2-4-0/ 6653.90 Ganga Prasad 2,44,127-57 7,18,740-00 52 99/1992 705/1995 616/ 2564 3-9-0/ 10434.53 Hemanti 6,83,941-56 11,29,115-00 53 19/1992 706/1995 959M 266.66 Sq Yard Veena Seth 23,289-00 28,799-28 54 117/92 707/1995 1267/2, 2264/1, 2273 0-2-18 0-9-7 1-9-10 1-12-6-10 /4887.5 Hari Singh 3,82,226-83 5,28,028-86 55 107/92 708/1995 422/ 2629/2 3-10-0/ 10585.75 Moola 3,89,047-49 11,,49,930-00 56 22/1992 709/1995 2620 2-1-0/ 6200.22 Ami Chand 2,30,326-72 6,69,735-00 57 129/92 424/1995 209/ 2627, 2627, 2629, 2630, 2624, 2625, 2565 0-10-0 0-5-0 3-15-2 0-1-2 0-10-2 0-10-0 3-15-4 7-2-6/ 21519.32 Majid 7,88,473-15 23,24,492-10 58 180/92 724/1995 104/ 1260/2, 2475/1 2483/1 2486/1 1267/2 20-2-19/ 60936.11 Dhanpal Singh 48,59,938-24 65,82,060-00 59 247/92 727/1995 641/ 2423, 2454 1-15-0 1-0-2 2--3-0/ 6502.67 Suresh Kumar 2,08,535-00 7,02,405-00 60 135/92 728/1995 2206, 2208, 2209, 2213, 2631 0-15-4 1-15-2 5-5-4 2-5-3 2-15-0 13-8-0/ 40528.30 Ami Chandra 14,87,621-55 43,77,780-00 61 81/1992 729/1995 879/2014 2204, 2212/2, 2216/1, 2218, 2222/2, 2222/4, 2229, 2564, 2425, 2461, 2538, 2538, 2535, 2618, 2638, 2210/2, 2533 1-3-0 0-18-0 0-0-13 1-2-0 1-13-0 0-6-0 0-4-0 0-16-5 1-2-13 0-10-0 1-19-0 3-1-0 0-12-0 2-10-0 0-14-0 0-5-0 0-14-0 17-0-11/ 51499.67 Ami Chand 18,81,413-63 55,62,884-10 62 37/1992 730/1995 848/2014 1235, 1236 2-2-0/ 6079.245 Pooran 2,33,307-00 6,86,070-00 63 96/1992 731/1995 250/ 1250, 1249 1-7-0 1-5-0 2-12-0/ 7863.70 Rameshwar 1,71,984-05 8,49,420-00 64 84/1992 52/1997 1260, 1211, 2240, 2441, 2224/1, 2244, 2247, 2234, 2475, 2483, 2486, 2510, 2458 0-12-10 0---7-- 0 1-10-0 1-9-13-1-3 0-5-0 0-2-10 1-11-10 1-3-0 2-4-10 1-14-0 1-5-0 1-1-0 18-1-13/ 54690.52 Bharat Bhushan 48,59,938-24 60,54,567-60 65 89/1992 699/1997 2472 1-6-0/ 3931.85 Pankaj Roy 1,44,190-93 4,25,710-00 66 349/92 489/1995 652/ 1245/2 0-7-0/ 1058.57 Liptar Singh 30,087-00 1,14,345-00 67 120/92 698/1995 522/09 2502 1-2-0/ 3326.95 Pradeep Kumar 1,22,185-25 3,59,370-00 68 17/1992 700/1995 27/ 2436, 2437 2-11-7-5/ 7767.294 Atar Singh 7,30,587-84 8,39,006-63 69 18/1992 702/1995 104/ 2483, 2486, 1260/2 2475
-
2-4-0 1-14-0 0-12-10 1-3-0 18-10-13/ 56051.54 Devendra 48,59,938-00 60,54.567-60 70 245/92 53/1997 2165, 2166, 2558, 2578, 2579, 2175, 2419, 2203, 2203, 2204, 2205, 2223, 2233,2264, 2543 1-3-0 0-17-0 0-18-0 0-15-0 0-14-0 1-6-0 0-7-0 4-16-0 0-14-0 0-16-5\ 1-0-0 1-8-0 0-1-0 1-5-0 16-17-5/ 51000.60 Ramnath 38,49,584-81 55,08,978-60 71 123/92 491/1995 2632 1-16-0/ 5444.10 Hari Dutt 1,99,873-28 5,89,000-00 72 3/1992 703/1995 278/ 2563/2 3-10-0/ 10585.75 Devendra Singh 3,90, 878-00 11,43,450-00 73 118/92 704/1995 2540, 2563/1 0-16-0 3-8-0 4-4-0/ 12702.90 Chhajju Ram 4,66,613-99 13,72,140-00 74 113/92 569/95 425/ 2230, 2235, 2236, 2235, 2242, 2434/2, 2483/2, 2504, 2510 1-12-0 1-16-0 1-10 1-0-0 0-17-0 1-16-10 2-5-10 1-17-0 13-14-0/ 41437.65 Mahesh Chand 36,04.898-37 44,75,790-00 75 111/92 694/1995 919/2014 70/2576 1-12-0/ 4839.20 Ishwar Dayal 1,34,249-14 5,22,720-00 76 104/92 437/1997 740/ 2563/3 3-4-0/ 9678.40 Ram Pal 3,54,884-78 10,40,040-00 77 37/192 848/2014 1235, 1236 2-2-0/ 6351.45 Pooran 2,33,307-00 6,86,070-00 78 120/92 522/2009 2502 1-2-0/ 3726.95 Pradeep Kumar 1,22,185-29 3,59,370-00 79 111/92 919/2014 70/ 2576 1-12-0/ 4839.20 Ishwar Dayal 1,34,249,14 5,22,720-00 80 50/1992 693/1998 238/237 2476, 2595, 2482 0-19-0 1-11-0 0-4-0 0-19-0 3-13-0/ 11039.43 Har Saran 4,28,169-06 11,70,372-50 *81 20/1992 698/1998 455/ 2165, 2166/1 2165, 2203, 2206, 2225, 2226, 2233, 2419/1, 2464/1, 2543, 2558, 2578, 2579, 2419/1 1-3-0 0-17-0 1-6-0 4-16-0 0-14-0 0-16-5 1-0-0 1-8-0 0-17-0 0-1-0 1-5-0 0-18-0 0-15-0 0-14-0 0-7-0 16-17-5/ 50996.41 Mangoo 38,49584-81 54,06,960-50 *82 131/92 695/1998 400/ 2436/1 0-4-0/ 604.00 Mangoo 65, 735-74 64, 130-00 *83 97/1992 539/2002 92/ 1222, 2460, 2519, 2529, 2530 0-12-0 1-14-0 0-10-0 0-17-0 0-4-0 3-17-0/ 11644.33 Om Prakash 3 76,193-25 1234502-50 84 132/92 486/2014 2569 3-8-14/ 10389.15 Ishwar Kumar 3,80,914-55 11,22,214-50 *85 102/92 750/2014 73/2569 2-4-6/ 6699.26 Ishwar Kumar 2,46,236-67 7,10,239-75 *86 38/1992 694/1998 246/ 2482 1-1-0/ 3175.72 Tirpati 1,15,187-00 3,36,682-50 87 342/92 (363)/99 2619 6-18-0/ 20869.05 Atar Singh 2308230-00 88 28/1992 (520)/93 2479, 2534, 2441 2-11-0/ 7712.48 Raghubar Dayal 283214-57 833085-00
5. NOIDA proposed acquisition of certain land for planned Industrial Development pursuant to which, the State Government issued a notification under Section 4(1) of Act, 1894, published in U.P. Gazette on 15.3.1988 proposing acquisition of 463.959 acres of land at Village Makanpur, Pargana Loni, Tehsil Dadri, District Ghaziabad. The aforesaid notification was also published in two local newspapers on 1.4.1988. Notification under Section 6(1) of Act, 1894 was published in U.P. Gazette on 9.7.1988 and in two local newspapers on 29.7.1988 and 30.7.1988. Possession of 320.856 and 30.609 acres of land was taken by Collector on 30.3.1989 and 10.5.1989 respectively. In all 351.465 acres of land came to be possessed by Collector. The possession of rest of the land could not be taken for various reasons.
6. The tenure holders filed objections and after considering the same, SLAO vide award dated 1.2.1991 determined market value of acquired land at the rate of Rs.90/- per square yard. After applying 20% deduction towards development etc. it held that land holders are entitled to payment of compensation at the rate of Rs.72/- per square yard, besides 30% solatium and interest as provided under Act, 1894.
7. In determining the aforesaid rate of compensation, SLAO relied on a sale deed dated 25.3.1988 at serial no. 1467 of Form-2, executed by Kartar Singh son of Hari Singh in favour of Smt. Ramwati wife of Hem Singh, transferring by sale, 400 square yards of land, for Rs. 36,000/-. The aforesaid land was within the area of the acquired land. Giving margin to the expenses involved in development of similar size of land, SLAO determined rate of compensation as stated above.
8. Some of the tenure holders received compensation under protest and many did not. A number of claimants approached Collector by filing applications under Section 18 of Act, 1894 for making reference to the Court for determination of market value of the acquired land.
9. Land Acquisition Reference (LAR) Nos.1/1992 to 57/1992 and LAR Nos. 80/1992 to 139/1992 were consolidated vide order dated 17.2.1992 passed by District Judge, Ghaziabad and LAR No.1/1992 was made the leading case. All the aforesaid consolidated references were transferred to the Court of VIIIth Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad. Later on, LAR Nos.245/1992, 247/1992 and 248/1992 were also consolidated with leading LAR No.1/1992 and came to be transferred to the Court of VIIIth Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad, besides one more LAR No.349/1992. That is how 80 Land Acquisition References were heard and decided by a common award dated 24.3.1993 by Reference Court. The other references were decided vide award dated 30.4.1993 by the District Judge.
10. The claimants stated before Reference Court that compensation must be at much higher rate. In different references, rates claimed by land holders varied from Rs.200/- to Rs.800/- per square yard. More precisely, they claimed compensation at the rate of Rs.200/-, Rs. 300/- Rs. 250/-, Rs.500/- and Rs.800/- per square yard.
11. On behalf of Claimants, 10 documents were placed in support of their claim for higher rate of compensation, as per the following chart. Sl.
No. Paper No. Details of Documents Area (Bigha) Sale consideration/Rate P.er sq.yard.
1 14 Ga Circle Rate Ghaziabad Development Authority, Vaishali for the year 1987
--
Rs.695/- per sq. yard 2 15 Ga Circle Rate Ghaziabad Development Authority, Indrapuram for the year 1989 Rs.850/- to Rs.1200/- per sq. yard 3 16 Ga Agreement for Sale dated 19.7.1990 200 Sq. yard Rs. 1,80,000/-
4 17 Ga Agreement to sale dated 13.3.1989 registered on 6.5.1989.
6-15-0 Rs.2895750/-
5 18 Ga Sale deed dated 12.5.1989 0-8-6 2/3 Rs.189000/-
6 19 Ga Sijra of Village Lalpur 7 20 Ga Sijra of Village Makanpur 8 18 Ga/2 Sale deed dated 19.7.1989 (LAR NO.1/1992) 6-15-0 Rs.28,95,750/-
9 23 Ga Sale deed dated 17.10.1988 executed by Jagriti Gayatri Varshney 230.03 square yard Rs.31054.65 10 24 Ga Sale deed dated 23.2.1988 executed by Jagriti Awas Samiti Ltd. through Kailash Singh 226.35 square yard Rs.30557.25
12. The documents relied on behalf of NOIDA to support market value determined by SLAO, are as follows:
Sl. No. Paper No. Details of Documents Area Sale consideration/ Rate per sq.yard. 1 28Ga Sale deed dated 1.6.1987/1989 of village Makanpur 0-13-6-2/3 Rs. 16,666.67 2 37Ga Sale deed dated 11.1.1988/17.2.1988 of village Makanpur 0-6-13-1/3 Rs.25,000-00 3 38Ga Sale deed dated 11.12.1987 of village Makanpur 0-17-0 Rs.42,500.00 4 39Ga Award dated 27.10.1991 passed by S.L.A.O. Pertaining to Kaushambi Scheme, Ghaziabad Development Authority. 230-18-5-10 23,27,031.07 5 40Ga Award dated 17.12.1990 passed by S.L.A.O. Pertaining to Indrapuram Scheme, Ghaziabad Development Authority. 5-8-33 Rs.51,90,183.73
13. On behalf of State of U.P. neither any documentary evidence was adduced nor any witness was examined.
14. The oral evidence on behalf of claimants consisted of deposition of Bhagwan Dass, Mahesh Chandra and Sri Krishna Tyagi as PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 respectively, while on behalf of NOIDA, two witnesses Basdev Gupta and Lala Ram as DW-1 and DW-2, respectively, were examined. DW-1 was working as Amin in the office of Additional District Magistrate (Land Acquisition), NOIDA, whereas, DW-2 was working as Lekhpal in Tehsil Dadri, District Ghaziabad. The Reference Court relied on documents 23Ga and 24Ga and came to the conclusion that market rate of land in question comes to Rs.135/- per square yard. Allowing 20% deduction, it arrived at market value of acquired land at Rs. 108/- per square yard vide award, dated 24.3.1993 impugned in these appeals. In the awards dated 30.4.1993 the Court has determined rate as Rs. 106/- per square yard.
15. With the consent of learned counsel for parties, record of First Appeal No.737 of 1995, NOIDA vs. Surendra Singh and 729 of 1995 has been taken as the leading case for the purpose of reference to the pleadings and other documents.
16. At the outset, Shri Amit Manohar, learned counsel appearing for appellant NOIDA contended that in a separate set of references arising out of land acquisition proceedings, emanating from the same notification dated 15.3.1988 under Section 4(1) of Act, 1894, relating to village Makanpur, an award was given by Court on 30.4.1993, determining compensation of acquired land at the rate of Rs.106/- per square yard. NOIDA as well as claimants both came up in appeal before this Court and 49 such appeals, led by First Appeal No.495 of 1995, NOIDA versus Smt. Charan Kaur and another, came to be decided by a Division Bench vide judgment dated 13.4.2014. This Court allowed all those appeals, set aside the Award dated 30 April, 1993, and remanded the matter to Court directing for fresh decision in the light of observations made in the said judgment. Shri Amit Manohar submitted that since acquisition proceedings are common, therefore, all the present appeals should also be remanded to Court for afresh decision.
17. However, having gone through the aforesaid judgment dated 13.4.2014, we find that except the appeal against award dated 30.4.1993, there is no reason/justification for this Court to follow above judgment, for the reason that the dispute raised in aforesaid appeals was on a totally different ground. Therein, Court determined market value of acquired land by applying 'mean value system'. It considered three different sale deeds providing rates of Rs.140/- 155/- and 160/- per square yard and taking all the three sale deeds together, an average was worked out which came to Rs.141.67 per square yard. Thereafter, market value of Rs.106/- per square yard was worked out by applying deduction. This Court found that the relevant factors for determination of compensation are "nature and quality of land, whether it is irrigated or unirrigated, facilities for irrigation, present location of the land, closeness or proximity to road or highway, evenness of the land, existence of any building or structure and host of other factors for valuation of the land". The Court categorically found that the method, i.e., 'mean value system' adopted by Court below by dividing rate per square yard of three different sale deeds, was wholly unreasonable and wrong. It is in these circumstances this Court set aside Award and remanded the matter back.
18. However, in present appeals, arising from Award dated 24th March 1993, Reference Court has not determined compensation by applying 'mean method' but it has discussed various relevant factors for consideration, including exemplar sale deeds available, and thereafter determined market rate by applying an deduction of 20%. Therefore, the reason and the ground on which Award dated 30th April 1993 was set aside in the aforesaid bunch of appeals in NOIDA vs. Charan Kaur and connected matters, has no application whatsoever to this set of appeals concerned with Award dated 24th March 1993. We cannot set aside Award dated 24th March 1993 impugned in most of these appeals on the ground of 'mean method' since it has not been applied therein. Therefore, submission of Shri Amit Manohar, learned counsel appearing for appellant NOIDA, based on the aforesaid decision, in our view, is totally misconceived and devoid of merits so far as the appeals wherein Award dated 24th March 1993 is under challenge. It is thus rejected.
19. However, the appeals wherein Award dated 30.4.1993 is under challenge, we find that those matters would be covered by judgment dated 13.4.2014 in NOIDA Vs. Charan Kaur and another (Supra).
20. The plea of res judicata, though not argued, but sought to be urged by appellant NOIDA, relying on the decisions in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and another vs. Union of India and others, AIR 2006 S.C. 1383, Mamleshwar Prasad and another v. Kanahaiya Lal (Dead) through LRs, AIR 1975 S.C. 907, Fida Hussain and Ors. v. Moradabad Development Authority and another, AIR 2011 S.C. 3001. None is applicable in the case in hand at all. Learned counsel appearing for NOIDA could not give any reply as to how principle of res judicata would be attracted in the case in hand, in the light of decision of this Court in NOIDA vs. Charan Kaur (supra), therefore, neither the submission as aforesaid is sustainable nor the aforesaid decision has any application to the issue involved in the facts of appeals.
21. Now we proceed to deal with submissions on merits. Besides oral argument, we have perused the relevant record and also considered the relevant authorities applicable on the issues raised in these appeals.
22. Appellant NOIDA has assailed the award of Reference Court contending that market rate determined is highly excessive and there was no justification for determining rate higher than what was determined by SLAO.
23. Shri Amit Manohar, learned counsel for appellant contended that exemplar relied on by Reference Court was in respect of a very small piece of land while area of acquired land was more than 450 acres, therefore, such exemplar of smaller piece of land ought not to have been relied on. He further contended that exemplars of NOIDA have been discarded unreasonably and for unjust reasons. The land in question was of low quality, having very less potential of immediate development and there was no otherwise justification to make determination of market value at a higher rate than what was determined by SLAO. He further contended that deduction of 20% is much less and it ought to be 30 to 50%. In support of this submission, Shri Amit Manohar placed reliance on a recent decision in Chandrashekar (D) by L.Rs. And Others v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Gulbarga and Another, AIR 2012 S.C. 446.
24. Shri Dharmpal Singh, learned senior advocate who led arguments on behalf of claimants followed by Shri Shiv Sagar Singh, Shri Utpal Chatterji, advocates contended that market value of nearby villages, where also land was acquired during corresponding period, has been determined on a very high rate and the same rate should be applied in these matters also. He further contended that either there should be no deduction or it should not be more than 10%.
25. The claimants/land holders have prayed for enhancement in the rate of compensation contending that Reference Court had determined market value at a much lower side. They have also contended that no deduction whatsoever ought to have been applied. The grounds taken in appeal of the claimants are that the market value should have been decided in the light of circle rates fixed by Collector for the year 1987 and 1989 in respect of Vaishali and Indrapuram, respectively, as placed before Reference Court vide paper no. 14 Ga and 15 Ga. Further, there was no justification to apply deduction of 20% to the rate arrived at by Reference Court and, therefore, the impugned award in so far as it has applied deduction of 20%, is bad. Learned counsel for claimants pressed for enhancement and contended that Reference Court has taken exemplar of lower value when there were available exemplars of much higher rate.
26. Before dealing with the rival submissions, it would be appropriate to have a glance over general legal principles which have been set in last few decades covering the question, how and in what manner market value of acquired land should be determined.
27. An Award passed by Land Acquisition Officer is like an offer and not to be treated as a judgment of trial Court. It is well settled, when the land holders are not agreeable to accept the offer made by Land Acquisition Officer, they have a right to approach Collector under section 18 of the Act, 1894, by a written application, for referring the matter to Court, for determination of the amount of compensation or if there is any dispute regarding measurement of land for that also. In the present case the references in question were made at the instance of claimants for determining to the amount of compensation.
28. In Chimanlal Hargovinddas vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, (1988) 3 S.C.C 751, the Court has said that a reference is like a suit which is to be treated as an original proceeding. The claimants is in the position of a plaintiff who has to show that the price offered for his land in the Award is inadequate. However, for the said purpose the Court would not consider the material, relied upon by Land Acquisition Officer in Award, unless the same material is produced and proved before the Court. The Reference Court does not sit in appeal over the Award of Land Acquisition Officer. The material used by Land Acquisition Officer is not open to be used by the Court suo motu unless such material is produced by the parties and proved independently before the Reference Court. Determination of market value has to be made as per market rate prevailing on the date of publication of notification under section 4 of Act, 1894. The basic principle which has to be followed by Reference Court for determining market value of land, as if, the valuer i.e. the Court is a hypothetical purchaser, willing to purchase land from the open market and is prepared to pay a reasonable price, as on the crucial day, i.e., date of publication of notification under section 4 of the Act, 1894. The willingness of vendor to sale land on reasonable price shall be presumed. The Court, therefore, would co-relate market value reflated in the most comparable instance which provides the index of market value. Only genuine instances would be taken into account. Sometimes even post-notification instances may be taken into account if they are very proximate, genuine and acquisition itself has not motivated the purchaser to pay a higher price on account of the resultant improvement in development prospects. Proximity from time angle and from situation angle would be relevant considerations to find out most comparable instances out of the genuine instances. From identified instances which would provide index of market value, price reflected therein may be taken as norm and thereafter to arrive at the true market value of land under acquisition, suitable adjustment by plus and minus factors has to be made. In other words a balance sheet of plus and minus factors may be drawn and the relevant factors may be valuated in terms of price variation as a prudent purchaser would do. The market value of land under acquisition has to be deduced by loading the price reflected in the instances taken for plus factors and unloading for minus factors.
29. Some of the illustrative examples of plus and minus factors given by the Court in Chimanlal Hargovinddas (supra) are as under:
Plus factors Minus factors 1 Smallness of size Largeness of area 2 Proximity to a road.
Situation in the interior at a distance from the road. 3 Frontage on a road.
Narrow strip of land with very small frontage compared to depth. 4 Nearness to developed area.
Lower level requiring the depressed portion to be filled up.
5.
Regular shape.
Remoteness from developed locality.
6. Level vis-a-vis land under acquisition.
Some special disadvantageous factor which would deter a purchaser.
7 Special value for an owner of an adjoining property to whom it may have some very special advantage.
30. The size of the land, therefore, would constitute an important factor to determine market value. It cannot be doubted that small size plot may attract a large number of persons being within their reach which will not be possible in respect of large block of land wherein incumbent will have to incur extra liability in preparing a lay out and carving out roads, leaving open space, plotting out smaller plots, waiting for purchasers etc. The Court said that in such matters, the factors can be discounted by making deduction by way of an allowance at an appropriate rate ranging between 20% to 50%, to account for land, required to be set apart for carving out road etc. and for plotting out small plots.
31. The concept of smaller and larger plots should be looked into not only from the angle as to what area has been acquired, but also the number of land holders and size of their plots. When we talk of concept of prudent seller and prudent buyer, we cannot ignore the fact that in the category of prudent seller the individual land holder will come. It is the area of his holding which will be relevant for him and not that of actual total and collective large area which is sought to be acquired. In these appeals the area of land acquired varies from 100 Sq. yards to 50,000 Sq. yards. Most of the holdings are between 2000 Sq. yards to 10,000 Sq. yards.
32. In V.M. Salgoacar & brother Ltd. vs. Union of India (1995) 2 S.C.C 302 the land acquired by notification dated 06.07.1970 in village Chicalim near Goa Airport belonged to a single owner. The Court observed when land is sold out in smaller plots, there may be a rising trend in the market, of fetching higher price in comparison to the plot which are much higher in size. Having said so the Court further said " though the small plots ipso facto may not form the basis per se to determine the compensation, they would provide foundation for determining the market value. On its basis, giving proper deduction, the market value ought to be determined".
33. Again in Shakuntalabai (Smt.) and others vs. State of Maharashtra, 1996 (2) S.C.C 152, 20 acres of land in Akola town was sought to be acquired by notification published on 11.08.1965 under section 4(1) of Act, 1894 which was also owned by a single person. It is in this context the Court said "the Reference Court committed manifest error in determining compensation on the basis of sq. ft. When land of an extent of 20 acres is offered for sale in an open market, no willing and prudent purchaser would come forward to purchase that vast extent of land on sq. ft. basis. Therefore, the Reference Court has to consider valuation sitting on the armchair of a willing prudent hypothetical vendee and to put a question to itself whether in given circumstances, he would agree to purchase the land on sq. ft. basis. No feat of imagination is necessary to reach the conclusion. The answer is obviously "no".
34. We need not go into a catena of other decisions rendered in the last several decades since we are benefited of a recent Division Bench decision of this Court in First Appeal No. 454/2003 and other connected matters, Meerut Development Authority through Its Secretary vs. Basheshwar Dayal (since deceased) Through His L.Rs. and another decided on 01.08.2013 wherein the legal principles settled by Apex Court in various judgments, relevant for determination of market value have been crystallized as under:
(i) Function of the Court in awarding compensation under the Act is to ascertain the market value of the land on the date of the notification under Section 4(1),
(ii) The method for determination of market value may be : -
(a) Opinion of experts,
(b) the price paid within a reasonable time in bona fide transactions of purchase of the lands acquired or the lands adjacent to the lands acquired and possessing similar advantages,
(c) a number of years purchase of the actual or immediately prospective profits of the land acquired. (Ref. (1994) 4 S.C.C 595 para 5 Jawajee Nagnatham Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer & others)
(iii) While fixing the market value of the acquired land, comparable sales method of valuation is preferred than other methods of valuation of land such as capitalisation of net income method or expert opinion method. Comparable sales method of valuation is preferred because it furnishes the evidence for determination of the market value of the acquired land at which a willing purchaser would pay for the acquired land if it had been sold in the open market at the time of issue of notification under Section 4 of the Act. However, comparable sales method of valuation of land for fixing the market value of the acquired land is not always conclusive but subject to the following factors:-
(a) Sale must be a genuine transaction,
(b) the sale deed must have been executed at the time proximate to the date of issue of notification under Section 4 of the Act,
(c) the land covered by the sale must be in the vicinity of the acquired land,
(d) the land covered by the sales must be similar to the acquired land
(e) the size of plot of the land covered by the sales be comparable to the land acquired.
(f) if there is dissimilarity in regard to locality, shape, site or nature of land between land covered by sales and land acquired, it is open to the Court to proportionately reduce the compensation for acquired land.
(iv) The amount of compensation cannot be ascertained with mathematical accuracy. A comparable instance has to be identified having regard to the proximity from time angle as well as proximity from situation angle. For determining the market value of the land under acquisition, suitable adjustment has to be made having regard to various positive and negative factors vis-a-vis the land under acquisition which are as under : -
Positive factors Negative factors
(i) Smallness of size
(i) Largeness of area
(ii) Proximity to a road.
(ii) Situation in the interior at a distance from the road.
(iii) Frontage on a road.
(iii) Narrow strip of land with very small frontage compared to depth.
(iv) Nearness to developed area.
(iv) Lower level requiring the depressed portion to be filled up.
(v) Regular shape.
(v) Lower level requiring the depressed portion to be filled up.
(vi) Level vis-a-vis land under acquisition.
(vi) Some special disadvantageous factor which would deter a purchaser.
(vii) Special value for an owner of an adjoining property to whom it may have some very special advantage.
(v) For ascertaining the market value of the land, the potentiality of the acquired land should also be taken into consideration. Potentiality means capacity or possibility for changing or developing into state of actuality.
(vi) Deduction not to be done when land holders have been deprived of their holding 15 to 20 years back and have not been paid any amount.
(vii) In fixing market value of the acquired land, which is undeveloped or under-developed, the Courts have generally approved deduction of 1/3rd of the market value towards development cost except when no development is required to be made for implementation of the public purpose for which land is acquired. (Ref. (2011) 8 S.C.C page 9, Valliyammal and another Vs. Special Tahsildar Land Acquisition and another , paras 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19).
(viii) When there are several exemplars with reference to similar lands, it is the general rule that the highest of the exemplars, if it is satisfied, that it is a bona fide transaction has to be considered and accepted. When the land is being compulsorily taken away from a person, he is entitled to the highest value which similar land in the locality shown to have fetched in a bona fide transaction entered into between a willing purchaser and a willing seller near about the time of the acquisition. (Ref. (2012) 5 S.C.C 432, Mehrawal Khewaji Trust ( Registered ), Faridkot and others Vs. State of Punjab and others).
(ix) In view of Section 51A of the Act certified copy of sale deed is admissible in evidence, even the vendor or vendee thereof is not required to examine themselves for proving the contents thereof. This, however, would not mean that contents of the transaction as evidenced by the registered sale deed would automatically be accepted. The legislature advisedly has used the word 'may'. A discretion, therefore, has been conferred upon a Court to be exercised judicially, i.e., upon taking into consideration the relevant factors. Only because a document is admissible in evidence, the same by itself would not mean that the contents thereof stand proved. Having regard to the other materials brought on record, the Court may not accept the evidence contained in a deed of sale. (Ref. (2004) 8 S.C.C 270 para 28 and 38, Cement Corpn. Of India Ltd. Vs. Purya and others).
(x) While fixing the market value of the acquired land, the Land Acquisition Collector is required to keep in mind the following factors :
(a) Existing geographical situation of the land.
(b) Existing use of the land.
(c) Already available advantages, like proximity to National or State Highway or road and/ or developed area,
(d) Market value of other land situated in the same locality/ village/ area or adjacent or very near the acquired land.
(xi) Section 23(1) of the Act lays down what the Court has to take into consideration while Section 24 lays down what the Court shall not take into consideration and have to be neglected. The main object of the enquiry before the Court is to determine the market value of the land acquired. The market value is the price that a willing purchaser would pay to a willing seller for the property having due regard to its existing condition with all its existing advantages and its potential possibilities when led out in most advantageous manner excluding any advantage due to carrying out of the scheme for which the property is compulsorily acquired. The determination of market value is the prediction of an economic event viz. a price outcome of hypothetical sale expressed in terms of probabilities. For ascertaining the market value of the land, the potentiality of the acquired land should also be taken into consideration. Potentiality means capacity or possibility for changing or developing into state of actuality.
(xii)The question whether a land has potential value or not, is primarily one of fact depending upon its condition, situation, user to which it is put or is reasonably capable of being put and proximity to residential, commercial or industrial areas or institutions. The existing amenities like water, electricity, possibility of their further extension, whether near about town is developing.
(xiii)In fixing market value of the acquired land, which is undeveloped or under-developed, the Courts have generally approved deduction of 1/3rd of the market value towards development cost except when no development is required to be made for implementation of the public purpose for which land is acquired. Deduction of "development cost" is the concept used to derive the "wholesale price" of a large undeveloped land with reference to the "retail price" of a small developed plot. The difference between the value of a small developed plot and the value of a large undeveloped land is the "development cost".(Ref. (2012) 7 S.C.C 595 paras 16, 17, 18, 21 and 22, Sabhia Mohammed Yusuf Abdul Hamid Mulla ( dead) and others).
35. From perusal of the record of the case, it reveals that it was neither the case of appellant before this Court nor the Reference Court that sale deeds relied upon by claimants were sham transactions. Moreover, Reference Court has not solely based on market rates of exemplar sale deed to determine rate of compensation, but has taken into consideration market rate of plots developed and sold by GDA itself and has adopted formula laid down in MVK Gundarao Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer (LAO), Narasaraopet, AIR 1996 S.C. 3241, wherein it has been held that 33-1/3 to 65% deductions can be made in the market rate of developed plot to quantify the rate of acquired land. In Chimanlal Hargovinddas v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, AIR 1988 S.C. 1652, the Apex Court has also laid down that in case, the acquisition is in respect of a large tract of land and the exemplar sale deed is in respect of small area, in that event, 25% to 50% deduction can be made.
36. While examining the approach of the Reference Court in determining the market value of the acquired land in question, we find that the learned Court has considered various aspects threadbare. The instances of 'circle rate' cited by claimants has been negatived on the ground that the same pertains to fully developed plots of two housing Schemes, Vaishali and Indrapuram of Ghaziabad Development Authority. One circle rate of 1989 was much posterior to the notification dated 15.3.1988, and was not relevant for determination of market value. The sale deeds of two years or more after the date of notification, held not relevant for determining an appropriate market value on the date of the notification. The Agreement for sale, i.e. Paper No. 16Ga dated 13.3.1989 was in respect of land of a private housing society which did not culminate in sale, for the reason that parties thereto could not get income tax clearance, as was evident from oral deposition of PW 1 Bhagwan Dass and Mahesh Chandra PW 2, hence not found reliable by Court below. The sale deed, paper no. 18C was in respect of village Lalpur. PW 2 stated that on the east of the acquired land, falls non abadi area of Lalpur. Moreover, the aforesaid sale deed executed on 12.5.1989 did not depict correct situation as it was on the date of notification.
37. When certain land is acquired for planned development, the rates of land in the vicinity are bound to rise due to potentiality of the planned development in the acquired area. Among the exemplars of NOIDA, sale deed dated 27.10.1987 (30C) pertained to village Makanpur but the document did not disclose nature of land, conditions of development etc. in the nearby area. The acquired land herein though agricultural, but surrounded with fully developed areas with industrial and colonial potentiality and also close to most developed Housing Schemes of Vaishali and Indrapuram of Ghaziabad Development Authority. This is evident from the award of Reference Court, relevant extract quoted hereinbelow:
"iz'uxr fookfnr Hkwfe ;|fi foKfIr ds fnukad esa d`f"k gsrq iz;ksx dh tk jgh Fkh ijUrq vkS|ksfxd o Hkkofud {kerk o mikns;rk ls ifjiw.kZ Fkh rFkk fodkl ds leLr lk/ku Hkh mlds vklikl miyC/k Fks vkSj ;g Hkwfe fodflr dkyksuh tSls dkS'kkEch] oS'kkyh] bUnzkiqje ds lehiLFk jghA ""
"The land in question, as on the date of notification, though being in use for agricultural purposes, was full of industrial and building prospects and also of utility; all the facilities required for development were available in its vicinity and this land was located close to the developed colonies such as Kaushambi, Vaishali, Indrapuram." (English translation by Court)
38. The Awards (Exhibit 39 Ga & Exhibit 40 Ga) relied on by NOIDA, pertained to land acquired at village Hasanpur for Kaushambi and Vaishali Housing Schemes. These Awards were delivered on 27.7.1991 and 17.12.1990. The notification under Section 4 was dated 2.4.1988. The Award dated 27.7.1991 (39Ga) determined compensation at Rs.3.47 per square yard and in the second Award dated 17.12.1990 (Exhibit-40 GA) it was Rs.39.67 per square yard. These Awards were not relied on for the reason that the matter had not attained finality. We are informed that in appeals, the rates have been enhanced very heavily. The sale deed dated 1.6.1987 (28 Ga) pertained to village Makanpur. The sale deeds, 23 Ga and 24 Ga, both pertained to village Makanpur. They were executed one or two months prior to notification dated 2.4.1988. Sale deed 23 Ga involved transfer by sale of 230 square yard land and the sale deed 24Ga involved transfer by sale of an area measuring 226.35 square yard of land. From the aforesaid documents, market value of land came to Rs.135/- per square yard. The Court below examined, whether instances of two small piece of land would be safe to be applied in the case in hand, and whether the acquired land is more than 300 acres, and held:
^^vf/kxzfgr dh x;h iz'uxr Hkwfe xkft;kckn fodkl izkf/kdj.k }kjk iw.kZr;k fodflr] vkoklh; ;kstukvksa mnkgj.kkFkZ dkS'kkEch] bUnzkiqje o oS'kkyh ds fcydqy lehi FkhA us'kuy gkbZos ls tqM+h gqbZ Fkh rFkk vkS|ksfxd bZdkbZ ;w0ih0,l0vkbZ0Mh0lh0 ds Hkh lehi FkhA ;g Hkh Åij fo'ysf"kr fd;k tk pqdk gS fd v/;kfIr Hkwfe lery Fkh vkSj xM~ "The acquired land in question was very close to the fully developed housing Schemes such as Kaushambi, Indrapuram and Vaishali, of the Ghaziabad Development Authority. It was adjacent to the national highways (NH) and very close to the Industrial Unit U.P.S.I.D.C. as well. It has also been discussed above that the acquired land was even land and free from potholes. DW 1 has himself admitted that the acquired land abutted on the NH-24 leading to Delhi; and opposite to it and across this road, Vaishali and Kaushambi housing schemes were developed. It has also been made clear by PW-3 that even at the time of the disputed land being acquired, there existed fully developed human settlements of the Delhi metropolitan city in its vicinity. He has also stated that at the time of acquisition, road and sewage works had been completed in 'Vaishali'; and the Dabur factory and the Industrial Centre of U.P.S.I.D.C. were half a kilometre or so away from this very land. In this way, it is clear that at the time of the notification under Section 4 (1) in connection with the land in question, the said acquired land was situated in a fully developed region and it was not likely to entail extra expenses for its any more development. PW-3 has stated in his statement that at the time of acquisition, sale-deeds of small plots, such as the ones with the dimension of 135 square yards, were being executed for residential purposes in village Makanpur. (English Translation by the Court)
39. The Court after considering relevant authorities, holding that in such cases an appropriate deduction should be applied, found that 20% deduction would be sufficient, for the reason that substantial development was already there in the vicinity of acquired land and, therefore, deduction at higher rate would not be justified.
40. It is also well established that if more than one sale deeds are of corresponding period, same area, providing different rates, the one which provided highest rate of market value, shall be followed.
41. On behalf of claimants it is contended that no deduction should have been applied in the case in hand. They also submitted that during pendency of these appeals, in some other matters a much higher rate of compensation has been allowed in respect to the land acquired corresponding to the acquisition in question and, therefore, following those judgments, the same rate should be applied to the case in hand even though exemplars of higher rates were available in those cases which were not before Reference Court in these appeals. A number of judgments have been placed before us and we have gone through the same.
42. First of the decisions is Jagdish Chandra and others v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, NOIDA and another (First Appeal No. 744 of 2001), Decided on 14.12.2007, reported in 2008(1) ADJ 253. This Division Bench judgment was delivered by Hon'ble Amitava Lala and Hon'ble V.C. Misra, JJ. Notification under Section 4(1) of Act, 1894 was issued for acquiring land, measuring 494-9-19 bighas (309.060 Acre) in village Chhalera Banger, Noida, district Ghaziabad. Though the notification was dated 30.10.1987 but published in U.P. Gazette on 27.2.1988 and in the daily newspaper on 11.6.1989. Corrigendum was issued on 18.6.1989 and 24.6.1989, modifying Notification published in the Gazette on 27.2.1988. Thus relevant date of notification in that case was taken as 24.6.1989. Notification under Section 6 read with Section 17(4) of Act, 1894 was issued on 15.12.1989 and possession over the land was taken on various dates in the year 1990 and 1991. The Collector made award on 4.2.1992, determining compensation at the rate of Rs.43.64 per square yard on the basis of a sale deed dated 29.8.1987 though actual transaction was made therein at the rate of Rs.54.54 per square yard. The Collector however allowed 20% deduction in the said rate and thus compensation came to be determined at the rate of Rs.43.64 per square yard. Claimant/Tenure holders submitted application for Reference. The Reference Court relied on an agreement to sell dated 19.4.1989 and found market value of the land at the rate of Rs.297.50 per square yard. After applying deduction of 50%, it awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.148.75 per square yard. Claimants/Tenure holders approached this Court in several appeals under Section 54 of Act, 1894, contending that no deduction ought to have been applied to the compensation determined at the rate of Rs.297.50. The question up for consideration in Jagdish Chandra (supra) was "whether Reference Court was justified in making deduction of 50% or not". On behalf of claimants it was argued that under Section 23 of Act, 1894, there is no provision for deduction hence it could not have been applied. After examining Sections 23 and 24 of Act, 1894, the Court in paragraphs 17 and 18 held as under:
"17. Under the aforesaid provisions of section 23 and 24 of the Act, the criteria is laid down upon which the amount of compensation in respect of the acquired land is to be determined. It is settled view that once the market value is valued on the basis of the sale (exemplar method) which has been found to be the best method for determination of compensation and nothing is revealed/prescribed by the Statute that the authority/reference Court is empowered to deduct any amount from the market value already determined, then in absence of any such provision of such deduction on any ground in the Statute, the deduction so made by the reference Court is patently illegal. On a query made by the Court from the learned Counsel for the parties that in absence of any provision for deduction provided at all in the Statute how could the concerned authority at the time of passing of the award or disposing of the reference deduct an amount towards development charges of the land in arriving at a correct market value for payment of just compensation of the land already acquired and possession taken over under the provisions of the Act from the erstwhile owner of the land whose all rights, titles and ownership over the land had come to an end, they could not forward any reply to the same.
18. On acquisition of the land the just compensation is paid to the owner of the land on the basis of correct market value of the property at the time of issuance of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. This market value is assessed as per the nearest sale deed exemplar in point of time and place. This compensation is paid on the basis of an award passed under Section 11 of the Act. It is note-worthy that once the land is acquired and possession has been taken by the acquiring body after the issuance of the notification under Section 4 and 6 is made the erstwhile owner looses all its rights, title, interest in the land vested in it and all of it stands vested with the acquiring/requiring body even though the symbolic acquisition is on paper. At this stage any deductions towards development/betterment charges are made at the time of awarding compensation to the erstwhile owner is not justiciable, more so since there is no statutory provision i.e. in the Act or Rules or Regulations etc. which provides for such deduction. After the acquiring/requiring body takes over the owership of the land it is for it to develop or not develop the land and to what extent and all investments made for the same are to be borne by it and not by the erstwhile owner. It may, which it does charge from the new purchaser while selling of the land in plots and the price includes the betterment charges for the roads, parks etc. with interest. The concerned Authority and in the present case NOIDA once it charges from the new/subsequent purchaser all such charges cannot also be charged under the garb of deduction while awarding compensation to the erstwhile owner and gain double benefit. In such circumstances such deductions are unjustified and are required to be reversed. IN the present case the land which is earmarked for 'Park' no development of the land has been shown to have taken place nor any amount has been spent for the same then there cannot be any justification for deduction from the correct market price for the payment of compensation to the petitioners. The issues are decided accordingly."
43. Thus Jagdish Chandra and others vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, NOIDA and another (Supra) the only question up for consideration was "whether 50% deduction to the rate determined by Reference Court was justified or not". The question "whether the rate of Rs.297.50 without deduction, determined by Reference Court was valid or not" was not an issue for consideration.
44.Then next judgment is Ganeshi Singh vs. State of U.P and others, decided on 9.5.2008, reported in 2008 (5) ADJ 306. It is also a Division Bench decision delivered by Hon'ble Amitava Lala and Hon'ble Shishir Kumar, JJ. Therein, the acquisition proceedings commenced in 1991. The appeals related to acquisition proceeding for acquiring land in village Chhalera Bangar, Pargana and Tehsil Dadri, district Ghaziabad. Under Section 4(1) of Act, 1894 notification dated 5.1.1991, published in the Gazette on 2.2.1991 was issued by State government, proposing to acquire land measuring area 790-16-9 bighas (492.26 acres). The notification was published in the newspaper on 24.3.1991. Corrigendum was also issued on 4.4.1991. Declaration under Section 6 read with Section 17 of Act, 1894 was published in the Gazette on 7.1.1992. Possession was taken in parts on 30.3.1992, 7.8.1995 and 18.11.1995. SLAO made award determining compensation at the rate of Rs.125/- per square yard but applying 12% deduction, it actually awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.110/- per square yard. On Reference made under Section 18, Court determined compensation at the rate of Rs.297/- per square yard but applying 25% deduction, it awarded compensation to Rs.222/- per square yard. In this matter also, the question was "whether deduction of 25% by Reference Court was justified or not". It was pointed out that except one or two plots of claimants which were large in area, rest of the plots under acquisition were of smaller areas and smallest plot was only 0.12 bigha. Though it was admitted therein that circle rate cannot be considered as basis of compensation, but it was contended that the land areas of different size of land under different notifications are accumulated, can this formula of deduction due to largeness of land be applicable or not. Following decision in Jagdish Chandra and others (Supra), the Court held that deduction ought not to have been applied. Consequently appeals of land owners/claimants were allowed with similar rate of land as it was in Jagdish Chandra and others (Supra).
45. In both these matters, thus it is evident that on the basis of exemplar relied on by Reference Court, the market value was determined by Court at Rs. 297.50 and Rs.297/- respectively per square yard. The Court attempted to reduce ultimate market value by applying 50% deduction in Jagdish Chandra and others (Supra) and 25% deduction in Ganeshi Singh (Supra), since former was an acquisition commenced in June, 1989 and the latter was an acquisition commenced on 2.2.1991. In both these matters, the Court held that deduction was not justified. The issue of rate as such was neither raised nor decided by this Court.
46.Then comes third decision in Raghuraj Singh and others vs. State of U.P. and others, Decided on 19.5.2010, by Hon'ble P. C. Verma and Hon'ble Ram Autar Singh, JJ. (First Appeal NO.1056 of 1999, reported in 2010 (8) ADJ 334.
47. The aforesaid judgment related to Notification dated 24th March 1988 with respect to village Bhangel Begumpur. On behalf of the claimants, certain additional evidences filed were admitted by the Court. These additional evidences were in the form of Awards of Reference Courts in LAR Nos. 392/93, 173/96, 396/93 and 213/93. The first award related to acquisition of land vide Notification dated 30.11.1989 under Section 4 in respect of village Bhangel Begumpur. The other three awards related to Notifications dated 21.02.1991, 23.11.1989 and 27.2.1988 with respect to villages Morna, Sarfabad and Chhalera Bangar respectively. After referring to aforesaid awards, the Court followed award in LAR No.392/93 which was in respect of Notification dated 30.11.1989 and following earlier decisions in Jagdish Chandra and others vs. NOIDA and another (Supra) and Ganeshi Singh vs. State of U.P and others (supra), it held that rate of Rs.297/- per Sq. Yard should be applied. We enquired from learned counsel for claimants in these appeals as to how rate determined in respect of acquisition notification of November, 1989 and onwards would be relevant to the present appeals, where acquisition notification is of March 1988 particularly, when in the present case, best exemplars relied by the claimants themselves have been followed and applied by Reference Court and is it possible to claimants to wriggle out from aforesaid documents, which are relied as evidences to support their claim. To this query, Shri Dharmpal Singh, learned senior counsel could give no reply at all and submitted that whatever is the judgement of this Court, is being simply relied on by the claimants.
48. Fourth judgement is Khazan Singh and others v. State of U.P. and others (First Appeal No.564 of 1997 and other connected matters), decided on 11.10. 2012, by Hon'ble Amitava Lala, the then Acting Chief Justice and Hon'ble Ashok Srivastava, JJ. In this Bunch, acquisition Notifications of 1983, 1986, and 1988 were involved in respect of village Bhanger Begumpur and in respect of three other villages Nagla Charandas, Geha Tilapatabagh and Chhalera Bangar, acquisition Notifications of 1982, 1986, 1988, 1991 and 1992 were involved. The Court, following its earlier decisions in Raghuraj Singh and others vs. State of U.P. and others (Supra), and Jagdish Chandra and others (Supra) held that the directions given in Raghuraj Singh's case will follow irrespective of the aforesaid acquisition proceedings of different areas and of different villages. The judgment, in short, is reproduced as under:
"Most of the first appeals and cross appeals are related to the enhancement of compensation in respect of village Bhangel Begumpur. In one of such cases, i.e. First Appeal No. 1056 of 1999 (Raghuraj Singh & others Vs. State of U.P. & others), the Division Bench of this Court held that the compensation will be enhanced upto Rs.397/- per square yard. The Division Bench following the principle laid down in the earlier order of a Division Bench presided over by one of us (Amitava Lala, J), has passed an order of enhancement of compensation reported in 2008 (1) ADJ, 253 (D.B.) (Jagdish Chandra & others Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development). According to us, since the compensation has already been enhanced and no such challenge has been found with regard to such enhancement, which has been contended by Mr. Kamim Jailwasthe learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant, we are of the view that similar compensation would be paid to the appellants whose cases are pending before this Court in relation to same village. The cases before us which relates to village Bhangel Begumpur notifications were issued in the years, 1983, 1986 and 1988 and possession was also taken in the years, 1983, 1987 and 1989 So far as other three villages Nagla Charandas, Geha Tilapatabagh and Chhalera Bangar, notifications were issued in the years 1986, 1988, 1991, 1992 and possession was also taken in the years, 1987, 1990, 1992 and 1995, and the compensation was determined and ultimately under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1994 by the Reference Court in the year, 1993, 1995, 2002, 2003, 2007, 2008 and 2010 All the four villages are adjacent to each other. The Reference Court ultimately granted similar relief in respect of the matter of Raghuraj Singh (supra). Hence we quantify the rate of compensation as above, the same will be paid following the directions as we have given in the case of Raghuraj Singh (supra). Following the earlier judgement of the Division Bench of this Court presided over by one of us (Amitava Lala, J) has passed the order, the appeals and cross appeals are disposed of, accordingly. At the time of reversal of the decree, the Reference Court will take into account the deficiency in court fee, if any and pass an appropriate order at the time of final order. However, substitution application/s, if any, pending in these appeals are also allowed, without imposing any cost. So far defective appeals are concerned, only defect/s was/were deficiency of court fees, it is directed that same will be recovered/adjusted in accordance with rules, while preparing final decree by the department. There will be no order as to costs." (emphasis added)
49. We enquired from learned Counsel how rates determined in respect of Section 4(1) notification of 24.6.1989 shall apply to acquisition of 1982, 1983, 1986, 1988 but instead replying the same, they said that it is the judgment of this Court and beyond that they cannot say anything.
50. Thereafter, other judgements which have followed decision in Raghuraj Singh (Supra), Khazan Singh and others (Supra) and Ganeshi Singh and others (Supra) are as under:
(i)Amar Singh & Another v. State of U.P. & others, (First Appeal No.644 of 2012), Decided on 10.3.2014, by Hon'ble Krishna Murari and Hon'ble Harsh Kumar, JJ. Acquisition Notification under Section 4(1) is dated 15.2.1992 relating to village Geha Tilapatabagh. SLAO determined compensation at Rs.41.31 per square yard, while Reference Court determined compensation at the rate of Rs. 250/- per square yard. The Court following Raghuraj Singh (Supra) determined compensation at the rate of Rs.297/- per square yard.
(ii)Ghaziabad Development Authority vs. Kashi Ram & Others, (First Appeal No. 910 of 2000 and other connected matters), Decided on 13.11.2014 by a Division Bench consisting of Hon'ble Rajeev Sharma and Dinesh Gupta, JJ. Acquisition notification under Section 4 of Act, 1894 was issued on 12.10.1986 in relation to village Makanpur, Pargana Loni, Tehsil Dadri, District Ghaziabad. SLAO allowed compensation at the rate of Rs.50/- per square yard, while Reference Court allowed compensation at the rate of Rs.90/- per square yard. This Court followed decision in Khazan Singh and others (supra) and Amar Singh & Another v. State of U.P. & others (supra) and allowed compensation at the rate of Rs.297/- per square yard.
(iii)Tejpal v. State of U.P. and Others (First Appeal No. 49 of 2005 and other connected matters), decided on 10.3.2014 by Division Bench consisting of Hon'ble Krishna Murari and Hon'ble Harsh Kumar, JJ. Acquisition Notification under Section 4 therein was issued on 2.2.1991 relating to village Chhalera Bangar, Pargana and Tehsil Dadri, District Ghaziabad. SLAO made award at the rate of Rs. 110/- per square yard, while Reference Court determined compensation at the rate of Rs.297/- per square yard, but allowing a deduction of 25% granted compensation at the rate of Rs. 222/- per square yard. The Court following the decisions in Ganeshi Singh and others (supra) and Jagdish Chandra and others (supra), allowed compensation at the rate of Rs.340/- per square yard by holding that since acquisition is of 1991, there should be an increment of 10% per annum.
51. Learned counsel for claimants argued that the award of Reference Court should be modified by enhancing rate of compensation. We find that before passing a decree of reversal, the appellate court has to meet the reasoning given by court below and has to record a finding that such reasoning is incorrect. It is not by taking a different view contrary to record, a judgment of reversal can be passed as a matter of course.
52. In S.V.R.Mudaliar (Dead) by Lrs. and Ors. Vs. Rajabu F.Buhari (Mrs) (Dead) by Lrs. and Ors. AIR 1995 SC 1607, the Court in paras 14 and 15 of the judgment has upheld the contention that though the appellate court is within its right to take a different view on the question of fact, but that should be done after adverting to the reasons given by trial court in arriving at the findings in question. The Appellate Court before reversing a finding of fact has to bear in mind the reasons ascribed by Trial Court. The Apex Court relied and followed earlier decision of Privy Council in Rani Hemant Kumari Vs. Maharaja Jagadhindra Nath, 10 CWN 630 and in para 15 of the judgment said:
"There is no need to pursue the legal principle, as we have no doubt in our mind that before reversing a finding of fact, the appellate court has to bear in mind the reasons ascribed by the trial court. This view of ours finds support from what was stated by the Privy Council in Rani Hemant Kumari Vs. Maharaja Jagadhindra Nath, (1906) 10 Cal.W.N. 630, wherein, while regarding the appellate judgment of the High Court of judicature at Fort William as "careful and able", it was stated that it did not "come to close quarters with the judgment which it reviews, and indeed never discusses or even alludes to the reasoning of the Subordinate Judge."
53. Following the above decision Hon'ble B.L.Yadav, J in Smt. Sona Devi Vs. Nagina Singh and Ors. AIR 1997 Patna 67 observed that whenever judgment of lower Appellate Court is a judgment of reversal, it is the primary duty of Appellate Court while reversing the findings of Trial Court to consider the reasons given by Trial Court and those reasons must also be reversed. Unless that is done, judgment of lower Appellate Court cannot be held to be consistent with the requirement of Order 41, Rule 31, which is a mandatory provision.
54. The above view has also been followed recently in Jaideo Yadav Vs. Raghunath Yadav & Anr., 2009(3) PLJR 529 wherein the Court said that Trial Court recorded its findings but lower Appellate Court had not reversed the said findings and rather on the basis of some findings of its own, appeal was allowed by lower Appellate Court without appreciating findings of Trial Court on the concerned issue. The court then said :
"The law is well settled in this regard that where the judgment of the lower appellate court is a judgment of reversal it is primary duly of the appellate court to consider the reasons given by the trial court and those reasons must also be reversed."
55. This court has also followed the same view in Doodhnath and Anr. Vs. Doodhnath and Anr., AIR 2006 Allahabad 3. Recently this view has also been followed in Second Appeal NO. 47 of 2015 Awadh Narayan Singh Vs. Harinarayan, decided on 22.1.2015.
56.From the above we find that in subsequent matters, earlier judgments is Jagdish Chandra and others (supra) and Ganeshi Singh (supra) have been followed though they were in respect of much later acquisition proceedings, and question of rate of compensation as such was not involved therein. The basic question which was considered by this Court in Jagdish Chandra (Supra) and Ganeshi Singh (Supra) related to deduction. In the present case, however, it is own exemplar of claimants which had been relied on by Reference Court. It is not shown that the reasoning given by Reference Court in determining market rate at Rs.135/- per square yard, per se, is bad or illegal or it has been arrived at by any misreading of documents. One of the two basic grounds taken in these appeals is that determination of rate ought to have been on the basis of circle rate. This Court has already held in National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. vs. State of U.P. and others (First Appeal No.865 of 2002 and other connected matters), decided on 8.4.2015, that circle rate fixed by Collector for the purposes of stamp duty should not be made the basis for determining market value. The Court has followed Apex Court decisions in U. P. Jal Nigam vs. M/s Kalra Properties (P) Ltd. and others, 1996 (3) SCC 124 and Lal Chand vs. Union of India and others, (2009) 15 SCC 769 (para 35 and 36). Thus the basic ground taken in appeals of the claimants that circle rate should have been followed, cannot be accepted.
57. With respect to determination of rate of Rs.135/- there is no ground that this by itself is bad . The next and last ground taken in these appeals is that there should not have been any deduction. To this extent, we find substance that the land in question was situated in an area which was already sufficiently developed, and land was being sold there in square yards. There was thus no justification to apply any deduction, whatsoever, since it is not a rule of thumb that in every case deduction must be applied. It is true that exemplars 23 Ga and 24 Ga relate to land of smaller area but it is also true that most of tenure holders whose land has been acquired in the proceedings in question, also have smaller area of land except a very few one, area whereof is large.
58. We follow the decision in Jagdish Chandra and others (Supra) and Ganeshi Singh and others (supra) that no deduction was permissible and therefore, market value as determined by Reference Court on the basis of exemplars 23 Ga and 24 Ga, without any deduction ought to have been allowed. The claimants' appeals, therefore, to that extent, deserve to be allowed. So far as the appeals preferred by NOIDA are concerned, we do not find that any case has been made out for reduction of rate determined by Reference Court, in view of discussion made above. Therefore, appeals preferred by NOIDA deserve to be dismissed.
59. In the circumstances, all appeals of NOIDA are hereby dismissed.
60. The claimants' appeals against Awards dated 24th March 1993 are partly allowed by setting aside the award of Reference Court in so far as it has applied 20% deduction. The award dated 24th March 1993 is modified and it is provided that claimants shall be entitled for payment of compensation at the rate of Rs. 135/- per square yard, as determined by Reference Court on the basis of exemplars 23 Ga and 24 Ga relied on by the claimants. The directions with regard to solatium, interest etc., as contained in the impugned award are hereby confirmed.
61. So far as First Appeals No. 693 of 1998, 694 of 1998, 695 of 1998, 698 of 1998, 539 of 2002 and 750 of 2014 are concerned, which are against award dated 30.4.1993, we find that Reference Court, i.e., District Judge, Ghaziabad has followed 'mean method' which has been deprecated by this Court in NOIDA vs. Charan Kaur and another, (First Appeal No.495 of 1995), decided on 13.4.2014 and this very award which is also subject matter for consideration herein, has been set aside. Following the aforesaid decision, above appeals are allowed and award dated 30.4.1993 passed by District Judge, Ghaziabad are set aside. These appeals are remanded to Reference Court for deciding these References afresh. The Reference Court is also directed to expedite disposal of these References and finalise the same expeditiously, and in any case, within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment in the light of the observations made above and in accordance with law.
62. In respect of appeals filed by NOIDA, which are dismissed, the respondents/claimants shall be entitled to costs throughout. In respect of appeals of claimants, which are being allowed partly or wholly, they shall be entitled to proportionate costs, throughout, to the extent they have succeeded in appeals. Dated: 15.04.2015 SC/Akn.