Sunil Ambwani, J.:- This first appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act preferred by the Ghaziabad Development Authority, Ghaziabad through its Vice Chairman/Secretary (defendant/appellant) arises out of judgment and decree dated 16.1.2001/29.1.2001 passed by the XIV Addl. District Judge, Ghaziabad in Land Acquisition Reference No.624 of 1997 under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. 2. We have heard Shri Ashwani Kumar Mishra, Sr. Advocate assisted by Shri Vrindavan Misra for the appellant. Shri K.K. Arora appears for the respondents. 3. The land in Khasra No.437 area 3 bigha 4 biswa (9680 sq. mtrs.) in Village Dasana Distt. Ghaziabad was acquired by the State Government under the Land Acquisition Act, 1895 (the Act) included in the total acquired area of 146 bigha 17 biswa and 19 biswansis vide notification under Section 4/17 of the Act dated 18.8.1988 for which the notification under Section 6/17 was published on 3.10.1988. The possession of the land was taken on 14.12.1988. The award under Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act was declared on 7.12.1990. A supplementary award for plot no.437 area 3 bigha 4 biswa, which is subject matter of this appeal was declared on 10.8.1997 for the structures and trees standing on the plot for which no assessment was made and compensation thereof was not paid. 4. In the award dated 7.12.1990 the Special Land Acquisition Officer determined the compensation for Village Dasana at Rs.71.43 per sq. yard. 5. Late Wing Commander P.D. Wali applied for reference under Section 18 of the Act, which was registered as Land Acquisition Reference No.624 of 1997. The reference court by its judgment and decree dated 16.1.2001 enhanced the compensation for an amount to Rs.163 per sq. yard along with other statutory benefits namely 12% interest with effect from the date of notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act dated 16.8.1988 upto the date of delivery of possession on 14.12.1988; 30% solatium under section 23 (2) of the Act; 9% interest with effect from the date of delivery of possession on 14.12.1988 and thereafter at the rate of 15% per annum until the amount is deposited. The reference court also allowed compensation of Rs.6,54,921.71 for the construction namely two rooms, two hand pumps, one Samadhi and the price of the trees, on the land along with 15% interest with directions that any amount paid shall be adjusted from the amount awarded. 6. The reference court also allowed compensation of Rs.6,54,921.71 for the construction namely two rooms, two hand pumps, one Samadhi and the price of the trees, on the land along with 15% interest with directions that any amount paid shall be adjusted from the amount awarded. 6. The Ghaziabad Development Authority has preferred this appeal on the grounds namely that the compensation on square yard basis by reference court of the agricultural land is contrary to the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as by this Court; the reliance of sale exemplars of very small area to justify enhancement was not legal. In respect of very large area such exemplars should have been ignored; the land was admittedly used for agricultural by growing fruits, trees and plants and therefore the determination of compensation on square yard basis was erroneous; the land is situate far away from the abadi area. The findings of the reference court that petrol pump was situate near the land would not justify the compensation on the rates higher than the agricultural land; the market value should have been determined on the basis of the use of the land. The Ghaziabad Development Authority has also questioned the award in respect of construction and trees on the ground that they have been valued on higher side. The land was not developed and that age of the trees in awarding compensation was not considered. 7. The land owner has also filed First Appeal No.423 of 2008 against the judgment and award dated 16.1.2001 passed in reference under Section 18 of the Act, which is connected with this appeal filed by the Ghaziabad Development Authority. So far as the issue relating to determination of the rate of compensation in respect of the land is concerned, the matter came up for consideration in respect of same notification in First Appeal No.395 of 2000 and other connected appeals in Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Chandra Bhan & Ors. A Division Bench of this Court deciding the appeal on 1st April, 2008 by a judgment reported in 2008 (6) ADJ 42 (DB) considered all the grounds taken by the Ghaziabad Development Authority. Allowing all the appeals the High Court held that the judgments/awards of the Court of reference impugned in this appeal are not sustainable and are liable to be set aside. Allowing all the appeals the High Court held that the judgments/awards of the Court of reference impugned in this appeal are not sustainable and are liable to be set aside. All the appeals and cross-objections filed by the claimants were dismissed. The Division Bench held that single notification was issued for three villages namely Village Harsaon for which the compensation was determined by the Special Land Acquisition Officer in its award dated 7.12.1990 at the rate of Rs.100/- per sq. yard; for Village Sadarpur at the rate of Rs.63.77 per sq. yard and for Village Dasana at the rate of Rs.71.43 per sq. yard, apart from solatium, additional compensation and interest. In determining the market value of the land the price paid in sale or purchase of the land acquired within reasonable time from the date of acquisition of the land in question is the best piece of evidence. A notification or several notifications could not be made the guiding factor for fixation of uniform rate of compensation for three different villages. The authority could have applied the comparative sales method for valuation of land, if there was evidence of sales or awards of land, in preference to the other recognised methods of valuation of land such as 'capitalisation of net income method' or 'expert opinion method'; but if any of the factors such as location, shape, size, potentiality or tenure of one plot of acquired land widely differs from the other plot(s) of acquired land(s), then the market-value of each plot of land acquired has to be determined independently of the other(s) even if the entire land had been acquired pursuant to the same preliminary notification. If the notifications are different but the lands are uniform in nature, uniform price can be fixed. If the lands are not similar but brought under same notification, there can not be any embargo to fix different rates. The S.L.A.O. in the present case has correctly drawn the inference which the claimants have accepted without protest. The reference court, however, failed to appreciate such part and came to a wrong conclusion. 8. The Division Bench in Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Chandra Bhan & Ors. (Supra) further held that even independently foundation of the judgment of the Court of reference is baseless. Whereas S.L.A.O. fixed compensation of Rs. The reference court, however, failed to appreciate such part and came to a wrong conclusion. 8. The Division Bench in Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Chandra Bhan & Ors. (Supra) further held that even independently foundation of the judgment of the Court of reference is baseless. Whereas S.L.A.O. fixed compensation of Rs. 100/- per square yard in respect of village Harsaon, the Court of reference relying upon two sale-deeds of small pieces of lands of such village, executed and/or registered after notification, enhanced compensation and after making deduction, and thereafter arrived at a uniform rate for all the three villages namely Harsaon, Sadar pur and Dasana. Relying upon Kummari Veeraiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1995) 4 SCC 136 it was held that it is common knowledge and experience that the proposal for acquisition takes long time for arriving at a decision. In the meantime, it would be an open card and known to everyone, and thus it is not uncommon to have sale deeds executed and registered in the interregnum so as to boost the value of the acquired lands. The compensation in the exemplars of Shri Ram Das at Rs.112/- per sq. yard for which evidence was led in appeal also did not support the entitlement of Rs.163 per sq. yard. The Division Bench further relied on Ashwani Kumar Dhingra v. State of Punjab, AIR 1992 SC 974 ; Land Acquisition Officer v. Shivabai & Ors., AIR 1997 SC 2642 and held that person cannot approbate and reprobate in the same proceedings. A claimant receiving compensation under protest and who makes application under Section 18 (1) alone is entitled to seek reference. The offer made by SLAO was accepted by most of the claimants without protest. Taking into consideration the words used in Section 18 the Division Bench found that the persons, who has accepted the award without protest were bound by the compensation offerred by SLAO. The compensation was thus pegged for all the three villages for agricultural land at the rate of which award was made by SLAO. In respect of Village Dasana the Division Bench finalised the compensation at Rs.71.43 per sq. yard. 9. Shri Ashwani Kumar Mishra appearing for the Ghaziabad Development Authority submits that the question of compensation of land in respect of same notification has been conclusively decided in Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Chandra Bhan & Ors. (Supra). In respect of Village Dasana the Division Bench finalised the compensation at Rs.71.43 per sq. yard. 9. Shri Ashwani Kumar Mishra appearing for the Ghaziabad Development Authority submits that the question of compensation of land in respect of same notification has been conclusively decided in Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Chandra Bhan & Ors. (Supra). He has relied upon the arguments raised and reasoning given in the Division Bench judgment dated 1st April, 2008 to support his argument. 10. Shri K.K. Arora, learned counsel for the respondent-claimant has not been able to persuade us to take a different view. We thus following the judgment in Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Chandra Bhan (Supra) dated 1st April, 2008 rendered in respect of same notifications and the agricultural land situate in the same village adopt the same reasoning to decide the question of quantum of compensation of land in favour of the respondents. 11. So far as the award of compensation for the structures on the land, the boring and trees we find that the reference court in deciding the valuation of such structures and trees in the supplementary award, relied on a joint inspection report dated 16.3.1993 in respect of subject Khasra No.437 carried out by Naib Tehsildar and the amin of the Ghaziabad Development Authority and found that there are two rooms measuring 26' 6 ' x 11'6''x10' and verandah with same measurement, two hand pumps, one Samadhi Baba of 1985 measuring 6' x 6' x 2' and room measuring 15' 6" x 9' 6" in which there is boring 5" with a 'hauj' of 5'8" and boundary wall measuring 148' x 5' x 14' and another boundary wall measuring 400' x 3' x 9'; two temples of Shiv and Hanuman measuring 8' x 8'; 200 trees of Safeda aged 12 years with circumference of 3' 6"; 100 trees of Safeda aged 8 years with circumference 7"; 1600 trees of Safeda aged 7 years; in addition there were two trees of 'Adu'; one tree of 'neem'; one tree of 'Amrud' and one tree of 'Kattha'. 12. The reference court thereafter considered the statement of PW-1 PD Bali (the claimant), who has stated that there are 7500 trees, of which 1500 trees were planted in the year 1982 and 6000 in the year 1996. 12. The reference court thereafter considered the statement of PW-1 PD Bali (the claimant), who has stated that there are 7500 trees, of which 1500 trees were planted in the year 1982 and 6000 in the year 1996. He, however, did not give the details as to how many trees survived after they were planted nor any independent evidence was adduced to prove the existence of 7500 trees. The reference court relied upon joint report of Naib Tehsildar and Amin in the office of the Ghaziabad Development Authority, who had reported existence of 1900 trees of Safeda and 5 other trees. In the supplementary award it was found that in the year 1996 there were only 1164 trees but once again there was no basis for reducing the number of trees from 1905 to 1164 and thus taking into consideration the circumference of Eucalyptus (Safeda) trees and the report of its valuation dated 15.5.1997 in which value of the tree was assessed in the year 1994 at Rs.266.66, the reference court held that there were 1995 trees to be valued at Rs.266.66, fixed the valuation of trees at Rs.5,31,986.70 and the constructions after giving depreciation at 20% according to its measurement at Rs.94,435/-. The compensation of boring was assessed on the basis of the report of the Asstt. Engineer, Minor Irrigation at Rs.8400/-. The measurement of the depth of the tube well was not denied by PW-1 P.B. Bali and P.W.-2 Rich Pal and consequently the compensation for trees and construction was worked out at Rs.6,54,921.71 and in that respect the award was increased from Rs.5,34,370/- to Rs.6,54,921.71. 13. Shri Ashwani Kumar Mishra submits that the award for trees is highly excessive in as much as the age of the trees was not considered in fixing compensation. The valuation of the construction is also excessive. During the course of argument he could not give any good reasons to dispute correctness of the joint inspection report dated 16.3.1993 and the valuation of construction in boring on the basis of expert statements of Addl. District Magistrate, Land Acquisition (Irrigation) and the Executive Engineer, Nirman Khand-1, PWD. We, therefore, do not find any substance in the contention that the valuation of construction and tree is on a higher side. District Magistrate, Land Acquisition (Irrigation) and the Executive Engineer, Nirman Khand-1, PWD. We, therefore, do not find any substance in the contention that the valuation of construction and tree is on a higher side. In this appeal (First Appeal No.466 of 2002) filed by Wing Commander Shri P.D. Bali (since deceased) he has claimed higher compensation of land and for construction and trees. He has disputed number of trees and has asserted that there were 7600 trees out of which 1500 Safeda trees were planted in 1982 and 6000 in the year 1986. We will be dealing with the grounds for determining the number of trees and its value separately in the appeal filed by him. 14. We have partly allowed the appeal filed by Wing Commander P.D. Bali (since deceased) through his son Shri Satendu Bali today by separate judgment to the extent that the claimant was denied solatium on the compensation for structures and trees. Following the judgment of the Supreme Court in Chaturbhuj Pande & Ors. v. Collector, Raigarh, AIR 1969 SC 255 (para 8 at page 257) and the judgment of Supreme Court in Sunder v. Union of India, JT 2001 (8) SC 130, we have held that the solatium at 30% and the interest on such amount is also payable on the compensation for constructions, structures and trees. 15. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any good ground to interfere in the appeal filed by the Ghaziabad Development Authority. For the aforesaid reasons, we partly allow the first appeal and while following the judgment of this Court in Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Chandra Bhan & Ors. (Supra) in respect of the same village and the notifications, we restore the rate of compensation of the land at Rs.71.43 per sq. yard with consequential statutory benefits, solatium and interest in the same manner as it is awarded by the reference court. So far as enhancement of the awards of the constructions, structures, boring and trees, we find no reason to interfere and uphold the award by reference court with statutory benefits like solatium and interest. 16. The decree will be drawn in accordance with the directions issued by us in this judgment as well as the judgment rendered today in First Appeal No.423 of 2008, Wing Commander P.D. Bali v. State of U.P. & Ors. 17. There will be no order as to costs. ______________