The decision in this appeal shall govern the disposal of other connected appeals being FA Nos. 284, 285, 286, 287, 298, 290, 291, 294, 295 and 297 of 2000, as all these appeals involve common questions of law and facts and secondly they arise out of one acquisition proceedings. Large area of land measuring 4827.63 hectares or so situated in as many as 21 villages of Mhow tehsil was acquired somewhere in 1986-87 by State by invoking the provisions of Section 4 and 6 of Land Acquisition Act for defence purpose - two firing ranges of Bercha and Hema. Large number of land owners having their pieces of land were affected as they were deprived of their possession as also the rights of ownerships. This led to determination of their cases for payment of their lawful compensation under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act by the Land Acquisition Officer (LAO). By several awards but based on common factors, the LAO determined the compensation payable to each land owner. This led to making of reference by the land owners under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act to the Civil Court (Reference Court). By several awards passed on different dates but again based on common factors, the learned reference Court (Additional District Judge, Mhow) enhanced the compensation payable to land owners. The Union of India felt aggrieved by the several impugned awards passed by Reference Court enhancing the compensation in favour of land owners filed as many as more than 150 first appeals under Section 54 of Land Acquisition Act to this Court. One major, or, I may say so, first batch of appeals comprising of as many as 154 appeals were decided by the Division Bench of this Court on 1.9.1999 by passing one judgment in F.A. No. 254/97 and in all connected appeals. Their lordships dismissed all these appeals filed by Union of India as also by land owners. It is useful to quote the reasoning of their lordships which persuaded them to dismiss all these appeals. This is what was held :- "These are a mixed bag of appeals filed by both Union of India and the landholders whose land was acquired for defence purpose. Being identical in nature, these are disposed off by this common order. It is useful to quote the reasoning of their lordships which persuaded them to dismiss all these appeals. This is what was held :- "These are a mixed bag of appeals filed by both Union of India and the landholders whose land was acquired for defence purpose. Being identical in nature, these are disposed off by this common order. Land measuring 4827.63 hectares or so situate in as many as 21 villages of Mhow Tehsil was acquired for two firing ranges of Bercha and Hema sometime in 1996. LAO determined compensation for this awarding Rs. 52,500/- per hectare for irrigated land, Rs. 35,000/- for unirrigated and Rs.30,000/- for uncultivated land in Bercha range and Rs. 67,500/-, Rs. 45,000/- and Rs. 40,000/- per hectare in the same order in Hema range. Land holders felt dissatisfied with this and in their reference, District Court enhanced the compensation to Rs. 88,000/- p.h. (irrigated), Rs. 58,000/- (un irrigated and uncultivated) in Bercha range and Rs. 88,000/- p.h. (irrigated) and Rs.58,000/- (un irrigated) and. Rs. 40,000/- for cultivated land in Hema range. A ward passed by the District Court is the bone of contention in these appeals filed by both sides. Union of India has attacked the award on many grounds including that it suffered from want of basis in as much as comparable sale deeds were not proved by the executants and that interest was wrongly awarded from the date of taking over of possession of the land. Likewise, land-holders have also taken all conceivable grounds to assail the award. According to them even when reference Court had found them entitled to higher compensation, it had strangely resorted to impermissible averaging method to fix the compensation in disregard of evidence on record. We would have very much liked to examine the merit of rival contentions, but it would serve the interests of none. It could only prolong the agony of petty land- holders without resulting in any gain to Union coffers, Assuming appeals filed by the Union were to be allowed, it could prove futile because compensation amount awarded by reference Court stood paid or was in the process of being paid to land holders under the orders of this Court with little or no prospects of its recovery. Similarly, if land-holders' plea was to be entertained, it could entail remand to the reference Court and protract the proceedings for years on to their disadvantage and detriment. Therefore, taking all this into consideration and given regard to the interest of both parties, we deemed appropriate to end this litigation in "let be gones and be by gones" spirit, because adverting to the issues raised by the parties would have opened Pandora's Box resulting in unending litigation causing avoidable hardship and inconvenience, more particularly to poor land-holders who have reportedly gone through considerable sufferings during the last 11 years for the sake of National Defence. This is not to shy away from taking the adjudication to logical end but to terminate the litigation to the mutual advantage and benefit of both sides. Viewed thus, all appeals filed by the Union as also the land- holders and their cross-objections except cross-objection 9PR No. 98/98 are hereby dismissed and the award passed by the reference Court affirmed which shall be satisfied by the Union without deducting any tax within six months from today. At this stage, it was pointed out by LC for appellants/land-holders that while the LAO had passed the award, he had failed to tender and deposit the award amount forthwith under Section 31 of LAA and had done so only after one year or so. This amount was later kept in a Bank deposit and what is worse, interest accruing thereon was adjusted by him in the compensation amount. It is submitted that this interest was otherwise payable to the claimants/landholders under the mandate of Supreme Court judgment and Section 31 of the Act. We find substance in the submission and direct the Land Acquisition Officer to calculate nine percent interest on the award amount deposited by him in the Bank till such amount was paid or offered to be paid to the claimants/landholders and to take steps to reimburse such amount to them. It was also pointed out that some of the land holders were only left with their houses on acquisition of their respective holdings. Such land holders could be given the benefit of rehabilitation Scheme adopted by the Union as their case stood recommended by the State Government. This plea is not borne by the record and in case any land holder felt aggrieved of this, he/she could approach the Court in an appropriate remedy. Such land holders could be given the benefit of rehabilitation Scheme adopted by the Union as their case stood recommended by the State Government. This plea is not borne by the record and in case any land holder felt aggrieved of this, he/she could approach the Court in an appropriate remedy. L/c for respondent in F.A. No. 296/97 submitted that respondent had filed cross objections in the appeal to pinpoint the error committed by Reference Court in awarding Rs. 45,000/- p.h. for unirrigated land when it had awarded Rs. 58,000/- p.h. in similar cases. The plea is substantiated by the record. Resultantly cross objections of this respondent are allowed to the extent that appellant Union shall pay him @ Rs. 58,000/- p.h. compensation for the land acquired from him, court fee deposited in the appeals filed by claimants/land holders shall be returned to the Registrar to take necessary steps for this. The present bunch of appeals also arises from the same acquisition proceedings, but remained to be disposed of presumably because of disposal of their reference cases at a later date i.e. subsequent to passing of the Division Bench decision. I sitting in single bench, is bound by the view taken by the Division Bench in the appeals which were subject matter of Division Bench. Secondly, these appeals also arise out of the same acquisition proceedings and hence these appeals have to be disposed of in the same terms and the reasoning recorded by the Division Bench in their judgment referred supra. In substance, I cannot take any other view contrary to the view expressed by the Division Bench in identical set of appeals. Judicial property and discipline being paramount I am bound to follow what the Division Bench has recorded. It is not in dispute rather it is the case of appellant that these appeals are identical in nature to those which are subject matter of judgment rendered by the Division Bench and hence they have to be disposed of on the lines contained in the said judgment. Accordingly and as a consequence, this appeal alongwith all appeals being FA Nos. 284. 285, 286, 287, 298, 290, 291, 294, 295 and 297 of 2000 are dismissed in the light of the judgment/decree rendered in F.A. No. 254/97, (Sitaram v. Government of India) and all other connected appeals decided on 1.9.1999 by the Division Bench. Accordingly and as a consequence, this appeal alongwith all appeals being FA Nos. 284. 285, 286, 287, 298, 290, 291, 294, 295 and 297 of 2000 are dismissed in the light of the judgment/decree rendered in F.A. No. 254/97, (Sitaram v. Government of India) and all other connected appeals decided on 1.9.1999 by the Division Bench. The reasoning, observations made by the Division Bench in their judgment rendered in FA No. 254/97 and other connected appeal shall equally apply to these appeals also. It is noticed in these appeals, that these appeals were initially filed on a deficit court fees stamp, later the appellant filed court fees and made the deficit good. The court fees later paid be taken on record and delay in filing the deficit court fees is hereby condoned.