JUDGMENT By the Court.—The challenge in this appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (for short ‘Act’) is to the award/judgment dated 7.11.2009 and decree dated 12.11.2009 passed by Smt. Saroj Yadav, 2nd Additional District Judge, Gautam Buddh Nagar, by means of which the reference preferred by the claimant’sappellants under Section 18 of the Act for enhancement of compensation has been rejected. 2. The acquisition proceedings were initiated by the State Government at the instance of U.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Limited, Kanpur (for short ‘Corporation’) for a planned Industrial Development in District Bulandshahar. Notifications under Section 4(1) and 6(1) of the Act were published on 14.7.1987 and 26.9.1987 respectively. 1789.8438 Acres (286 Bigha 3 Biswa) of land situated in village Kasna, Pargana Dankaur, Tehsil Sikandarabad, District Bulandshahar was acquired. 10 Bigha of land (plot Nos. 34 and 37/2) in the said village belonging to the claimants was also acquired. The Special Land Acquisition Officer (for short ‘SLAO’) made an award on 26.9.1989. As per the said award, the claimants were entitled to grant of compensation at the rate of Rs. 10775.06/- per bigha (Rs. 3.56/- per square yard) alongwith other statutory benefits. 3. Aggrieved by the said award the appellants moved an application before the District Magistrate, Bulandshahar under Section 18 of the Act for referring the matter to the District Judge for determining the market value of the land. 4. Before the SLAO, the appellants led oral and documentary evidence. In support of their claim, the appellants examined themselves as PW-1 and PW-2. Apart from oral evidence the appellants also filed documentary evidence. They inter alia relied upon judgment dated 30.3.2002 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Bulandshahar in LAR No. 542/1992, Chandan Singh v. State of U.P. and others and 2 other connected LAR’s, judgment dated 7.3.2005 passed by Special Judge, (S.C./S.T.), Gautambudh Nagar in LAR No. 124/2002, Kanwar Singh and another v. State of U.P., and judgment dated 12.12.2003 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 2, Bulandshahar in LAR No. 38/1990, Genda Singh v. State of U.P. and 13 other connected LAR’s. 5. The SLAO rejected application under Section 18 of the Act on the ground that the appellants were unable to place any sale-deed as exemplar and were unable to lead any oral or documentary evidence in support of their claim. The SLAO rejected application under Section 18 of the Act on the ground that the appellants were unable to place any sale-deed as exemplar and were unable to lead any oral or documentary evidence in support of their claim. Reliance placed by the appellants on the judgments pertaining to the acquisition of land in the same village arising out of the same notification was discarded by the Reference Court by stating that the said judgments were of a Court of coordinate jurisdiction and were not binding. The learned counsel for the appellants has referred to the following observations made by the Reference Court in the impugned judgment: lanHkZdrkZx.k dh vksj ls dgk x;k fd muds }kjk i=koyh ij tks fu.kZ;ksa dh izfrfyfi;kW nkf[ky dh xbZ gS muds vk/kkj ij lanHkZdrkZx.k dh Hkwfe dk izfrdj c<+kdj iznku fd;k tkuk pkfg,A lanHkZdrkZx.k }kjk lwph 22x ls] 25x rFkk 45x ls tks fu.kZ; dh izfr;kWA nkf[ky dh xbZ gS] og lekukarj {ks=kf/kdkj j[kus okys U;k;ky; dh gS] tks fd bl U;k;ky; ij ck/;dkjh ugha gSA vr% i=koyh ij vHkh rd miyC/k lk{; ls ;g fl) ugha gksrk gS fd fo'ks"k Hkwfe v/;kfIr ij vHkh vf/kdkjh }kjk vfHkfu.khZr izfrdj dh /kujkf'k vi;kZIr gSA vr% ;g okn&fcUnq rnkuqlkj lanHkZdrkZx.k ds fo#) fu.khZr fd;k tkrk gSA English Translation by the Court It was contended from the side of reference makers that on the basis of the copies of judgments filed by them, they must be awarded higher compensation for their land. Copies of judgment filed by the reference makers, from list 22 Ga to 25 Ga and 45 Ga, are of Court having coordinate jurisdiction and hence not binding on this Court. Therefore, it does not prove from the evidence available on record till now, that amount of compensation determined by the Special Land Acquisition Officer is not sufficient. Therefore this issue is accordingly decided against the reference makers. 6. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that judgments on which reliance was placed by the appellants before the Reference Court had evidentiary value and they could not have been ignored by the Reference Court by merely stating that the said judgment being of Courts having coordinate jurisdiction were not binding on it. 6. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that judgments on which reliance was placed by the appellants before the Reference Court had evidentiary value and they could not have been ignored by the Reference Court by merely stating that the said judgment being of Courts having coordinate jurisdiction were not binding on it. The learned counsel has further submitted that the appeal preferred by the Corporation against the judgment dated 12.12.2003 passed in L.A.R. No. 58 of 1990, Genda Singh and others v. State of U.P. and others and 13 other connected L.A.Rs was withdrawn on 13.10.2006 and Genda Singh and others were paid compensation @ Rs. 65/- per square yard. In the circumstances, the appellants were also entitled to compensation at the same rate. 7. Per contra Smt. Archana Singh, learned counsel for the respondents has supported the judgment. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. The only question to ponder this appeal is as to whether or not the appellants are entitled to compensation @ Rs. 65/- per square yard. 10. It is no more res integra that the proceedings before the Reference Court are original proceeding where the market value has to be determined afresh. The appellants is in the position of a plaintiff who has to show that the price offered for his land in the award is inadequate on the basis of the materials produced in the Court. The market value of land under acquisition has to be determined as on the crucial date of publication of the notification under Section 4 of the Act (dates of notifications under Sections 6 and 9 are irrelevant). 11. Before dealing with the rival contentions advanced by the counsel for the parties it will be appropriate to refer to the law bearing on the matter. 12. In Khaja Mizuddin v. State of Andhra Pradesh, C.A. 176 of 1962 decided on April 10 1963, it was laid down by the Apex Court as follows: “Under Section 23 (1) of the Act, in determining the amount of compensation, the Court shall take into consideration the market value of the land at the date of publication of the notification under Section 4 (1) thereof. Decided cases have laid down that the said market rate must be determined by reference to the price which a willing vendor might reasonably expect to obtain from a willing purchaser. For ascertaining the market rate the Court can rely upon such transactions which would afford a guide to fix the price. Price paid for a land acquired within a reasonable time from the date of acquisition of the land in question would certainly be the best piece of evidence. Price paid for a land possessing advantages similar to those of the land acquired in or about the time of notification will also supply the data for assessment of compensation.” (emphasis supplied) 13. In City Improvement Trust Board Banglore v. H. Narayanaiah, AIR 1976 SC 2403 , in paragraph 27 of the said report the Apex Court has held as follows: “27. In Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bombay v. Lakhamsi Ghelabhai, AIR 1960 Bom 78 , Shelat J, held that judgments not inter partes, relating to land acquired are not admissible merely because the land dealt with in the judgment was situated near the land of which the value is to be determined. It was held there that such judgments would fall neither under Section 11 nor under Section 13 of the Evidence Act. Section 13 of the Evidence Act. Questions relating to value of particular pieces of land depend upon the evidence in the particular case in which those facts are proved. They embody findings or opinions relating to facts in issue and investigated in different cases. The existence of a judgment would not prove the value of some piece of land not dealt with at all in the judgment admitted in evidence. Even slight differences in situation can, sometimes, cause considerable differences in value. We do not think it necessary to take so restrictive a view of the provisions of Sections 11 and 13 of the Evidence Act as to exclude such judgments altogether from evidence even when good grounds are made out for their admission. In Khaja Mizuddin v. State of Andhra Pradesh, C.A. 176 of 1962 decided in April 10 1963 (SC) a bench of three judges of this Court held such judgments to be relevant if they relate to similarly situated properties and contain determinations of value on dates fairly proximate to the relevant date in a case." (emphasis supplied) 14. In Khaja Mizuddin v. State of Andhra Pradesh, C.A. 176 of 1962 decided in April 10 1963 (SC) a bench of three judges of this Court held such judgments to be relevant if they relate to similarly situated properties and contain determinations of value on dates fairly proximate to the relevant date in a case." (emphasis supplied) 14. In State of U.P. v. Babu Ram, AIR 1995 All 2 , in paragraph 5 of the said report, a Division Bench of this Court has held as follows: “5. Market value is determined on the date of notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act, under Section 23 for determination of the market value exemplers of contemporanious transactions in respect of land having similar advantages have the evidenciary value. Previous awards have also evidenciary value to consider the question of market value. When in respect of one of the land owners, compensation has been awarded at a rate which is same as in respect of other owners of the land acquired under the same notification in the village, it can be presumed that acquired lands of the various owners have similar advantages. Accordingly, when market value as determined in one reference which has become final in absence of any appeal, the same rate would also govern the land of other owners.” (emphasis supplied) 15. In Additional Special Land Acquisition Officer, Mangalore v. P. Anatha Bhat, AIR 1972 Mysore 313 (V 59 C 107) in paragraph 14, a Division Bench has held as follows: “14. It is now fairly established that in matters relating to land acquisition a judgment of a Court in regard to similar lands or properties would be a relevant piece of evidence. This is not to say that such a judgment is binding as a precedent. The award in a L.A. Case is essentially a decision on a question of fact depending on the facts and circumstances of such case, unless a question of law or principle has been settled therein. Whenever such a judgment is sought to be used as a piece of evidence, it must satisfy the usual test of relevancy and application to the facts and circumstances of the case in which it is relied on.” (emphasis supplied) 16. Whenever such a judgment is sought to be used as a piece of evidence, it must satisfy the usual test of relevancy and application to the facts and circumstances of the case in which it is relied on.” (emphasis supplied) 16. In Dhiraj Singh (Dead) through legal representatives and others v. State of Haryana and others, (2014) 14 SCC 127 , while condoning the delay in filing the appeals, the Apex Court observed that in matters of land acquisition different approach has to be taken. Paragraph No. 9 and 11 of the said report being relevant is being quoted below. “9. No doubt, there is a long delay in filing the appeals. However, we find that it is a case of payment of compensation to these appellants who were the landowners and which land was taken away by compulsory acquisition. However, landowners whose lands were taken over by the same notification, have been able to get the compensation @ Rs. 200 per square yard whereas the compensation given to the appellants is @ Rs. 101 per square yard for their entire land. 11. In the matter of land acquisition where land of peasants is acquired, a different approach has to be taken. These persons should not be deprived of the reasonable compensation for their lands. If other similarly situated landowners are given the compensation @ Rs. 200 square yard, there is no reason to pay the compensation to the appellants at much lesser rate.” (emphasis supplied) 17. Bearing in mind the above principle, we now deal with the contentions raised by the erstwhile owners of the land in dispute. 18. For computing compensation in respect of the lands acquired by the State, the market value therefore, has to be ascertained. It is well known that the amount which a willing purchaser of the land would pay to the owner of the land as may be evidenced by deeds of sale is the best method to do so. In the absence of any direct evidence on the said point, the Courts may take recourse to other methods e.g. judgments and awards passed in respect of acquisitions of lands made in the same village and/or neighboring villages. 19. In the case in hand, in the absence of any sale-deed, the appellants had placed reliance on judgments pertaining to acquisition of land in the same village and under the same notification. 19. In the case in hand, in the absence of any sale-deed, the appellants had placed reliance on judgments pertaining to acquisition of land in the same village and under the same notification. The Reference Court, discarded the judgment in a most cryptic manner by merely stating that the judgment on which reliance was placed by the appellants being of Courts of coordinate jurisdiction were not binding. Such an approach cannot be approved. 20. A judgment of a Court in a land acquisition case determining the market value of a land in the vicinity of the acquired lands, even though not inter parties, could be admitted in evidence either as an instance or one from which the market value of the acquired land could be deduced or inferred. 21. In L.A.R. No. 38 of 1990, Genda Singh v. State and others and 13 other connected LARs, the Additional District Judge, Court No. 2, Bulandshahar by its judgment dated 12.12.2003 awarded compensation to Genda Singh and other land owners at the rate of Rs. 65/- per square yard. 22. Aggrieved by the judgment dated 12.12.2003 the Corporation preferred a First Appeal No. 928 of 2004, U.P. State Industrial Development Corporation v. Genda Singh and another, before this Court and on 13.10.2006 the said appeal was dismissed as not pressed and thereafter Genda Singh and other villagers of village Kasna were awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 65/- per square yard. The order dated 13.10.2006 is extracted below: “Hon’ble R.P.Mishra, J. Hon’ble Sabhajeet Yadav, J. Sri S.K. Misra, learned counsel for the appellant states that he has been instructed not to press the appeal, therefore, the appeal may be dismissed as not pressed. Shri Y.D. Sharma, appearing on behalf of respondents and Shri B.D.Mandhyan, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Satish Mandhyan, learned counsel for the respondents have no objection. The appeal is accordingly dismissed as not pressed. Dated: 13.10.2006" 23. The learned counsel for the Corporation does not dispute the fact that the landowners-claimants of LAR No. 38 of 1990 were similarly situated as the appellants of the present appeal. The land belonging to the appellants of the said LAR and that of the appellants in the present appeal was situated in the same village and was acquired by the same notification. 24. The land belonging to the appellants of the said LAR and that of the appellants in the present appeal was situated in the same village and was acquired by the same notification. 24. In view of the discussion made above, we would have set aside the impugned judgment and remitted the case to the Reference Court for fresh determination of the compensation in the light of the observations made above, but as the acquisition is of the year 1987 and now more than 29 years have passed, we do not consider it proper to adopt that course. 25. In the circumstances, we are of the firm opinion that the appellants are also entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs. 65/- per square yard. The Reference Court is hereby directed to recalculate the amount of compensation to be awarded to the appellants and also the statutory benefits to which the appellants are entitled under law and pay to them the remainder amount within a period of 2 months from the date of communication of this order. 26. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is allowed with costs.