ORDER : Doraiswamy Raju, J. Leave granted in SLPs (C) Nos. 10664, 14979, 17650 of 2001 and 8451 of 2002. 2. Delay condoned in filing application for substitution. 3. Application for substitution and transposing the respondents as the appellants and application for deletion of the name of the respondent are allowed. 4. All the above appeals have been filed by the claimants, who were not satisfied with the quantum of enhanced compensation granted in their favour by the High Court. 5. These appeals pertain to the acquisition of lands in four villages, namely, Sukhrali, Silokhara, Wazirabad and Ghata. 6. Shri P.P. Rao, learned Senior Counsel supported and supplemented by Shri G.L. Sanghi, Shri S.B. Sanyal and Shri Jagdeep Dhankar, learned Senior Counsel argued for the appellants and Mr. Mahendra R. Anand, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the State of Haryana was also heard. During the course of hearing several points have been urged by the learned Senior Counsel to demonstrate their respective claims that the method of valuation adopted by the High Court proceeded on an erroneous assumption of some relevant and vital facts, particularly, in respect of the name of the village relating to Ext. P-42 and that some of the documents relied upon by the claimants as well as by the respondent State were not taken into consideration in view of the then prevailing state of law, which obligated the examination of one or the other of the persons concerned with the document or relating to the transactions covered by those documents before it could be taken in as evidence. Yet another grievance that was urged on behalf of the appellants was that in arriving at the particular rate of compensation ultimately awarded by the High Court, the rates awarded in respect of the lands acquired in Jharsa Village as also Islampur (mistakenly taken as the land relating to Village Silokhara instead of Islampur) were relied upon as guidelines and that though all the material on record, some made available even by the State showed that the lands in question are better placed and of a better quality than the lands relating to Village Jharsa and consequently should have been given a higher rate, there had been gross omission in objectively considering all such aspects in determining the compensation to be awarded. It has also been brought to our notice that so far as the claims relating to the acquisition of lands in Villages Jharsa and Islampur are concerned, a batch of appeals is still pending final adjudication before a Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Letters Patent Appeal No. 206 of 2000, etc. The appeals filed by the State are also said to be pending before the High Court. 7. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent State, no doubt, would not agree with the line of submissions made for the appellants, as to the method or rates of valuation of the lands. The reference made above to the contentions raised on behalf of the appellants was meant to highlight the nature of some of their grievances only and not to indicate any of our view on the tenability or merit in the contentions of either of the appellants or that of the respondent State. 8. Even at this stage of the hearing we prima facie felt that it would be inappropriate for this Court to give a final verdict on the merits of the claim for enhanced compensation in the appeals before us, for the simple reason that it is likely to have a serious impact on the letters patent appeals pending before the High Court though in respect of acquisition of lands in the other villages but which were taken as a guiding factor, even for arriving at the valuation of the lands in question. In addition thereto, if for any reason the claimants in the appeals now pending before the High Court are able to get a better and further enhancement in respect of the data lands acquired though in Village Jharsa or Islampur the valuation in these cases before us having been arrived at guided by the valuation in those cases, the appellants would suffer a serious setback in not being able to have the benefit of such adjudication also and their claims would have been once and for all decided with reference to the earlier rates of valuation, without reference to such change in circumstances. This would also result in contradictory situations coming to hold the field and gaining approval of court on account of disfuncted (sic the dysfunctional) manner of dealing with all these claims. 9. This would also result in contradictory situations coming to hold the field and gaining approval of court on account of disfuncted (sic the dysfunctional) manner of dealing with all these claims. 9. Keeping in view all these aspects of the cases and to avoid such a piquant situation which may defeat not only the ends of justice but also the rights of either of the parties, we feel it appropriate, just and reasonable, to set aside the judgments of the High Court under challenge in these appeals and remit the matters to the High Court for being dealt with along side or simultaneously with the pending letters patent appeals, with liberty to both the parties to make their respective submissions as to the principles or standards or the guidelines to be adopted for determining the value of the lands in question. It is also made clear that since some of the documents on either side came to be excluded from consideration in view of the then prevailing position of law and the inability of the parties to examine one or the other person connected with the document or the transaction relating thereto, liberty is granted to invite the attention of the High Court to accept in evidence and consider all such documents also, in the light of the decision of this Court in Land Acquisition Officer and Mandal Revenue Officer v. V. Narasaiah, (2001) 3 SCC 530 which has since been reaffirmed by a Bench of three learned Judges of this Court in Land Acquiring Body v. Ramprasad H. Maharaj, (2007) 15 SCC 593 . The question of payment of interest on solatium is also left open for the parties, to be urged before the High Court, in accordance with law. 10. In view of the above orders of ours, the question of recovery from the claimants does not arise and the respective rights of parties to hold the money already paid or to repay or reimburse the State anything, will abide by the judgment of the High Court in the proceedings now remanded for its fresh consideration. 11. For all the reasons stated above, these appeals are allowed, the judgments of the High Court under challenge are set aside and the matters are remitted to the High Court for consideration afresh in the light of the above directions. 12. No costs. Appeals allowed.