ORDER : Doraiswamy Raju, J. Leave granted in SLPs (C) Nos. 9514 of 1995 and 6997 of 2002. 2. In Civil Appeal No. 9147 of 1995, the landowners have claimed for enhanced compensation, not satisfied with the sum of Rs. 12,000 per bigha granted by the High Court by a judgment and decree dated 1-8-1994. Their claim is for the sum of Rs. 60,000 per bigha. The Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") in the case was issued on 19-8-1976 in respect of lands situated in Village Gharoli. The Land Acquisition Collector passed an award on 31-1-1979 and the Reference Court by different awards passed on more than one day during the period between 30-7-1982 and 30-10-1982, awarded a sum of Rs. 2160 per bigha which, as noticed earlier, was further enhanced by the High Court to Rs. 12,000 per bigha. 3. The other appeals also related to acquisition of lands under the same notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act. In Civil Appeal No. 3229 of 1996 and the appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 9514 of 1995, the judgment under challenge is the same as in Civil Appeal No. 9147 of 1995, passed in common in a batch of appeals before the High Court. In the appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 6997 of 2002, the Reference Court has chosen to award Rs. 9400 per bigha for chahi land in Block A and Rs. 6267 per bigha for khakhi land in Block B, whereas the High Court has chosen to award, as in the other cases, and following the earlier decision challenged in the other appeals, a uniform rate of Rs. 12,000 in respect of all lands. The appellants, not satisfied, have come before this Court claiming at the rate of Rs. 60,000 per bigha except in SLP (C) No. 6997 of 2002, wherein the claim has been only for Rs. 23,400 per bigha. 4. Heard the learned counsel on either side. 5. 12,000 in respect of all lands. The appellants, not satisfied, have come before this Court claiming at the rate of Rs. 60,000 per bigha except in SLP (C) No. 6997 of 2002, wherein the claim has been only for Rs. 23,400 per bigha. 4. Heard the learned counsel on either side. 5. Reliance was placed for the appellants in support of the claim for further enhancement on three other decisions of the Delhi High Court reported in Mohar Singh v. Union of India, (2001) 90 DLT 416 (DB) relating to a Notification under Section 4(1) issued on 13-11-1959 said to encompass lands in a cluster of adjacent villages, including the village now under consideration wherein a claim was countenanced for a sum of Rs. 8064 per bigha in respect of lands in Village Kondli; Bedi Ram v. Union of India, (2001) 93 DLT 150 (DB) relating to two Notifications under Section 4(1) issued on 8-2-1973 and 19-8-1976 in respect of lands situated at Kondli Village, in which for the lands covered by the Notification dated 8-2-1973, the market value was fixed at Rs. 22,850 and for the lands covered by Notification dated 19-8-1976 it was fixed at Rs. 34,150 per bigha; and Jagmal Sharma v. Union of India, (2001) 94 DLT 487 (DB) in respect of a Notification dated 8-2-1973 relating to lands in Kondli Village awarding a compensation of Rs. 22,850 per bigha following the decision in Bedi Ram case. The decision reported in Karan Singh v. Union of India, (1997) 8 SCC 186 of this Court in respect of an acquisition of lands situated in the very Village Gharoli by a Notification under Section 4(1) issued on 17-11-1980 affirming the compensation awarded in that by the High Court at a uniform rate of Rs. 76, 550 per bigha, was also brought to our notice. In the said decision, it was also observed that judgment of courts in land acquisition cases or awards given by the Land Acquisition Officers can be relied upon as a good piece of evidence for determining the market value of the land acquired under certain circumstances. On the basis of the above materials, the learned counsel for the appellants strenuously contended that there is every justification to allow the claim of the appellants for a sum of Rs. 60,000 per bigha, keeping in view also the escalation in prices of land in the locality. On the basis of the above materials, the learned counsel for the appellants strenuously contended that there is every justification to allow the claim of the appellants for a sum of Rs. 60,000 per bigha, keeping in view also the escalation in prices of land in the locality. 6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Union of India invited our attention to the judgment of the High Court and while adopting the reasoning therein, contended with equal force that the decision to award Rs. 12,000 per bigha in this case had been arrived at on a reference to and after objective consideration of the relevant comparative/index sale deeds in respect of the lands in the locality and, therefore, there is no warrant for any further interference or enhancing the compensation any further relying upon the materials referred to by the learned counsel for the appellants. 7. On a careful consideration of the submissions of the learned counsel appearing on either side, we are of the view that the determination of compensation, in respect of lands covered by a Notification dated 17-11-1980 in the decision in Karan Singh or the one fixed at Rs. 34,150 per bigha in respect of the lands of Village Kondli as on 19-8-1976 (vide Bedi Ram) cannot be straight away taken as a reasonable yardstick for ready application. In respect of the lands acquired in Village Kondli relating to a Notification dated 8-2-1973, a sum of Rs. 22,850 per bigha seems to have been awarded by the very High Court. Taking clue from certain observations contained in the decision of the High Court reported in Mohar Singh, it is sought to be urged for the appellants that the lands in the cluster villages forming a group of Kondli, Gharoli, etc. are said to be similarly situated and that, therefore, the claim for enhancement could be considered with reference to the other decision of the High Court as well. We are of the view that the general observations about the cluster of villages being situated side by side cannot be sufficient enough to uniformly treat the lands situated in all these villages to be similarly located or of identical nature in the absence of any finding given in the cases before us as such by the Reference Court or the High Court. But at the same time taking into account the overall circumstances of the cases, and the different rates awarded in respect of different notifications relating to different periods of time, giving sufficient indication as to the periodical increase also of the market value to some extent, and the acquisitions in and around these areas for similar developmental purposes, we are of the view that the rates adopted by the Division Bench of the High Court for the acquisition of lands in the adjacent Kondli Village can reasonably be taken up as the broad indication of the basis or minimum standard, as on 8-2-1973, to determine the value to be fixed in respect of the lands in question as on 19-8-1976. On that view, we also consider applying the formula adopted in some of the cases by this Court of adding to the benchmark valuation, a sum at 10% per year to the value adopted and thereby determine the actual market value or the compensation to be awarded. Consequently, we consider it reasonable keeping in view the nature of the land, location and the year of acquisition, to determine the market value for the lands in question at Rs. 30,000 per bigha instead of Rs. 12,000 per bigha, as fixed by the High Court in these cases. Though the appellants in civil appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 6997 of 2002 seem to have been modest in confining their claim before the authorities below to Rs. 23,400 having regard to the fact that the persons similarly situated and whose lands are acquired under the same notification are awarded by this judgment Rs. 30,000 per bigha, they would also be entitled to be paid compensation @ Rs. 30,000 per bigha. 8. For all the reasons stated above, the appeals shall stand partly allowed. The appellants would in addition be entitled to the other statutory benefits on the enhanced compensation now awarded, including the award of interest on solatium as held by this Court in Sunder v. Union of India, (2001) 7 SCC 211 . 9. The appellants in civil appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 6997 of 2002 shall remit to the Registry the deficit court fee on the difference of the valuation made for purposes of claims and the sum now awarded in their favour within six weeks from today. The parties will bear their respective costs. 9. The appellants in civil appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 6997 of 2002 shall remit to the Registry the deficit court fee on the difference of the valuation made for purposes of claims and the sum now awarded in their favour within six weeks from today. The parties will bear their respective costs. Appeals partly allowed.