ORDER 1. Delay condoned. 2. Leave granted. 3. In this batch of appeals the several orders passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in first appeals preferred by Ghaziabad Development Authority (hereinafter for short "GDA") have been challenged. 4. The facts of the case are that lands were acquired in the district of Ghaziabad pursuant to a notification dated 16-8-1988 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The Special Land Acquisition Officer made his award on 30-7-1991, awarding a sum of Rs 90 per sq yd by way of compensation. On reference being made under Section 18 of the Act the court enhanced the compensation to Rs 160 per sq yd. GDA, the respondent herein went in appeal before the High Court against the enhancement of compensation. The claimants were also aggrieved by the order of the court and preferred appeals before the High Court claiming further enhancement. GDA filed applications for stay of the award. In a large number of cases orders were passed staying the award on the condition that GDA shall deposit 50% of the enhanced compensation in court, out of which half could be withdrawn by the claimants without furnishing security and the remaining half after furnishing security. Later some more applications were filed by GDA and it appears that by an order made on 5-8-2004 it was ordered that GDA shall deposit only 25% of the enhanced compensation, out of which half could be withdrawn without security and the remaining half could be withdrawn after furnishing security. Similar orders have been passed in several appeals and the claimants therein are before us by way of these appeals by special leave. Their submission is that there was no reason for the High Court to pass a different order in the case of the appellant claimants reducing the amount required to be deposited by GDA as a condition of the order of stay. It is their case that the High Court having consistently passed similar orders, there was no justification for the High Court to deviate and pass a different order in the matters with which we are concerned in this batch of appeals. 5. Counsel for GDA and the State of V.P. on the other hand contend that there are reasons for the High Court to take a different view. 5. Counsel for GDA and the State of V.P. on the other hand contend that there are reasons for the High Court to take a different view. In this regard reliance is placed on a judgment of the High Court in FAs Nos. 226 and 247 of 1997 dated 5-3-2004 wherein the High Court considering an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 17-12-1996 of the XIVth Additional District Judge, Moradabad in LAR No. 370 of 1995 set aside the order enhancing the compensation by the court under Section 18 of the Act and restored the award of the Special Land Acquisition Officer. While disposing of the appeal the learned Judges of the High Court noticed a scandalous practice prevailing in the districts of western V.P. e.g. Ghaziabad, Gautam Budh Nagar, Meerut, Moradabad, Bulandshahar, etc. in collusion with some judicial officers. As a result exorbitant compensation was being awarded by the courts under Section 18. Even the Special Land Acquisition Officers acting in collusion were awarding exorbitant amounts by way of compensation. Certain other observations are made which we do not consider necessary to reproduce in this order. It was submitted before us that in view of the observation of the High Court and the directions contained in the aforesaid judgment, the matter has been further inquired into by the High Court on its administrative side. Our attention has been drawn to a letter of 15-9-2004 written by the District Judge, Ghaziabad to the Vice-Chairman, Ghaziabad Development Authority requesting him to meet the Hon'ble Judges in chamber in connection with some probe in land acquisition cases decided in the last five years in which alleged excessive amounts have been awarded. The justification for the reduction in the amount to be deposited in court is derived from the observations of the High Court in the aforesaid judgment and the inquiry that was conducted later on. 6. We are distressed to observe that the learned Judges of the High Court were persuaded to make such observations in a judicial order. Such observations made in a judicial order afford no opportunity to the officers concerned to appeal against such order. On the other hand they tend to tarnish the image of the judiciary and create an atmosphere of distress in the judicial process. These are delicate and sensitive matters, which have to be carefully dealt with. Such observations made in a judicial order afford no opportunity to the officers concerned to appeal against such order. On the other hand they tend to tarnish the image of the judiciary and create an atmosphere of distress in the judicial process. These are delicate and sensitive matters, which have to be carefully dealt with. Such serious allegations of judicial misconduct against judicial officers in a large number of districts tend to do' immense harm to the reputation of the judiciary as regards its integrity and impartiality, and we wish such observations were not recorded in the aforesaid judgment of the High Court. The salutary practice followed by the High Courts in such cases is to avoid referring to such facts in the judgment, and to deal with such matters on the administrative side, so that those found guilty are punished in accordance with law. It may be that after such observations are made in the order of the High Court, nothing ultimately may be found to substantiate those allegations. However, in the meantime, immense harm is done to the judiciary's reputation of being fair and impartial. 7. Having said so, we shall now consider the facts of this case. It was argued before us at one stage that the first order which was passed reducing the amount, which was required to be deposited by GDA took notice of the facts which persuaded the High Court to pass a different order. The submission was that the first order took notice of the fact that certain allegations against judicial officers were being inquired into and there was suspicion that the orders passed were not fair and honest. We had directed GDA to place before us a copy of that order. The entire order was not produced before us but some part of the order was quoted in the affidavit filed on behalf of GDA. However, we have before us the order of 5-8-2004 passed in First Appeal No. 154 of 2004, which has been produced by counsel for the appellants. In the said order we find no mention of any proceeding having been initiated against any judicial officer or any inquiry having been ordered by the High Court on the administrative side. The aforesaid order records no reasons whatsoever. In the said order we find no mention of any proceeding having been initiated against any judicial officer or any inquiry having been ordered by the High Court on the administrative side. The aforesaid order records no reasons whatsoever. The relevant part thereof is as follows: "Considering the facts that enhancement in the present case is from Rs 90 per sq yard to Rs 160 per sq yard, I think it desirable to modify the interim order dated 19-3-2004. The order dated 19-3-2004 is confirmed subject to the modification that the appellant shall deposit 25% of the enhanced decretal amount within a period of two months in the court below. In case of default the stay order shall stand automatically vacated. Half of the total amount deposited by the appellant can be withdrawn I by the respondent claimants without furnishing any security. The remaining half amount can be withdrawn by the respondents after furnishing adequate security to the satisfaction of the court below." 8. Counsel for the appellants submits that the submission urged on behalf of GDA is not correct and in fact no such facts were taken into consideration while reducing the amount required to be deposited by GDA as a condition I of the stay granted by the High Court. It was also submitted before us, and not controverted by counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, that in 11 cases the State itself had moved the High Court for modification of the orders earlier passed praying that GDA may be directed to deposit only 25% of the enhanced amount awarded by the court, but the same was rejected by the High Court on 6-10-2005. Counsel for GDA states that the respondents have also filed two special leave petitions [SLP (C) ... of 2005 (CC No. 27618 of 2005) and SLP (C) ... of 2005 (CC No. 27629 of 2005)] against orders of the High Court refusing to modify the orders earlier passed. 9. Having noticed the facts of the case, we find that in a large number of cases the High Court had earlier passed orders directing GDA to deposit 50% of the enhanced amount in court, half of which could be withdrawn by the claimants without security and remaining half after furnishing security. 9. Having noticed the facts of the case, we find that in a large number of cases the High Court had earlier passed orders directing GDA to deposit 50% of the enhanced amount in court, half of which could be withdrawn by the claimants without security and remaining half after furnishing security. We find no good reason to pass a different order than the orders earlier passed by the High Court whereby GDA was directed to deposit 50% of the amount of enhanced compensation. In the interest of consistency of judicial orders, this deviation is not justified particularly when it is unsupported by any reason. We, therefore, allow these appeals and set aside the orders impugned therein and direct that in all the first appeals before the High Court filed by GDA which concern the appellants before us, GDA shall deposit a sum equivalent to 50% of the enhanced amount awarded by the court under Section 18 of the Act, half of which may be withdrawn by the claimants without furnishing security and the remaining half on furnishing security. We make it clear that if 25% of the enhanced amount as directed by the High Court in the impugned orders has already been deposited by GDA then it shall deposit the remaining 25% of the enhanced compensation. 10. We direct that this order shall be complied within six weeks from today failing which the order of stay granted by the High Court in the first appeals shall stand vacated. 11. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs.