ORDER 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. Delay condoned. 3. The special leave petitions are dismissed. 4. Mr N.N. Goswami, learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted before us that though he is not in a position to challenge the statements contained in the impugned judgments of the High Court, which make it apparent that the judgments and orders were passed on concession or by consent, there are a large number of other cases of acquisition where the quantum awarded by the Reference Court has been challenged before the High Court. Those matters are still pending before the High Court and if the same principle of valuation is applied, the petitioner will suffer great injustice. His contention is that the lands in respect of which cases are still pending before the High Court are situate far away from the land in respect of which the sale deed had been produced as Annexure A-9 as an exemplar as well as the lands subject-matter of the impugned judgments. The law is fairly well settled that the court must value the land acquired having regard to its value by applying the statutory guidelines. Lands lying far away from the lands in respect of which sale deed is produced by way of evidence, cannot have the same value. The value of such lands may be more or less depending upon their potentiality and location and having regard to other relevant considerations, which the court has to keep in mind under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. 5. We appreciate the submission urged on behalf of the petitioner and, therefore, we clarify that in all matters still pending before the High Court, it will be open to the petitioner to challenge the award of the Reference Court on such grounds as it may be advised, and without anything more, the impugned judgments in these special leave petitions will not be treated as a precedent. 6. The special leave petitions are dismissed.