JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Sanjeev Singh on behalf of the appellants, Sri Ramendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for NOIDA and learned Standing Counsel for the State. 2. This bunch of 92 first appeals filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 arise out of common orders of VIII Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad dated 24.3.1993 and dated 30.4.1993 passed by District Judge, Ghaziabad in reference proceedings under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 eminating from the common award dated 1.2.1991 passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, NOIDA. 3. We find from the record that this bunch of appeals was decided by a Division Bench of this Court vide judgement dated 15.4.2015. The claimants’ appeals were partly allowed. 20% deduction made by the Reference Court was held to be bad. The claimants were held entitled for payment of compensation at the rate of Rs. 135/- per square yard as determined by the reference Court without deduction. The appeals filed by NOIDA were dismissed. 4. The claimants not being satisfied with the judgment and order of the Division Bench, filed Special Leave to Appeal before the Apex Court which were granted and converted into civil appeals, leading being Civil Appeal Nos. 1506-1517 of 2016, Pradeep Kumar and others v. State of U.P. and another. The Apex Court vide judgment and order dated 16.2.2016 allowed the appeals and remanded the matter to the High Court to re-consider the same. 5. The judgment and order of the Apex Court is reproduced hereinunder : “1. Leave granted. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 3. In our opinion certain aspects with regard to the valuation and location of the land have not been properly discussed and therefore, the matters requires reconsideration by the High Court. For instance, we may say that the Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, had been issued on 10th March, 1988. The appellants have been awarded compensation @ Rs. 135/- per square yard for the land belonging to them, whereas in respect of certain land, said to be similarly situated which had been acquired in the year 1986, compensation of Rs. 297/- per square yard had been awarded. 4. The appellants have been awarded compensation @ Rs. 135/- per square yard for the land belonging to them, whereas in respect of certain land, said to be similarly situated which had been acquired in the year 1986, compensation of Rs. 297/- per square yard had been awarded. 4. We are of the view that the afore-stated aspects have not been clarified because normally the price of the land goes on increasing, but the reasons as to why lesser amount has been given to the appellant, has not been properly explained in the impugned judgment. 5. Be that as it may, the afore-stated fact and some other facts ought to have been discussed in detail. Therefore, we set aside the impugned judgment and remand the cases to the High Court so that they may be reconsidered by the High Court. The appeals are allowed with the above observations with no order as to costs. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of. 6. We are sure that the High Court will decide the matters at an early date. The parties shall appear before the High Court on 28th March, 2016, so that date for hearing can be decided on that day. 7. Registry to send intimation of this order to the High Court. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants had made a grievance that till today no compensation has been paid to the land owners. If it is so, we are sure that the amount which has been awarded by the Reference Court shall be paid to the appellants as soon as possible, preferably within a period of three months from today.” 6. It is in this background that these appeals have been listed before us again for hearing. 7. At the very outset, we may record that since NOIDA had not preferred any appeal against the judgment of the Division Bench dated 15.4.2015, the order passed in their appeals has become final between the parties. Counsel for the NOIDA has also not addressed us on any of the issues which were raised by NOIDA in their appeals. 8. Out of these 92 appeals, 74 appeals have been filed by NOIDA, while 18 appeals have been filed by the claimants/tenure holders. 9. The relevant facts for deciding the present appeals in short are as stated under. 10. 8. Out of these 92 appeals, 74 appeals have been filed by NOIDA, while 18 appeals have been filed by the claimants/tenure holders. 9. The relevant facts for deciding the present appeals in short are as stated under. 10. The land holdings of the claimants/tenure holders as detailed hereinbelow were subject-matter of acquisition vide Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquitition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as Act 1894), dated 15.3.1988 followed by Notification under Section 6 of the same Act. 11. The dispute in the present appeals is as to what should be the fair rate per square yard for determination of compensation to be awarded to the tenure holders of village Makanpur, Tehsil Dadri, District- Ghaziabad with reference to the said notifications. 12. It is not in dispute that under the said notifications, the land was acquired for the purposes of planned industrial development at NOIDA. The details of the land holdings of the appellants which were subject-matter of the acquisition, the compensation awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer and the amount awarded by the Reference Court, are reproduced in the form of chart hereunder: Sl. The details of the land holdings of the appellants which were subject-matter of the acquisition, the compensation awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer and the amount awarded by the Reference Court, are reproduced in the form of chart hereunder: Sl. No. LAR No. Appeal No. Khata  No.   /Khasra  No. Area Bigha/  Square Yard First name of the  owner Compensation awarded  by SLAO Compensation   awarded by  Court 1 01/1992 737/95 104,  704 18-10-13- 1-12-6-10 20-2-19- 10/60940 Surendra  Singh 5242165-07 6582596-50 2 16/1992 384/1995 2616,  2530, 2531 9-3-0 1-15-0 1-15-0 2-18-0/  8771.05 Suresh 2,18,912-91 9,47,430-00 3 30/1992 385/1995 1257,  1258 0-17-0 1-14-0 2-11-0/  7712.475 Baseer 283822-00 833085-00 4 87/1992 386/1995 1254/1,  2517/2,  2526,  2527/2,  2494/2 0-5-3 0-15-4 0-5-2 0-0-3 2-15-0 4-12-0/  13912.7 Khusi  Ram 5,11,111-27 15,02,820-00 5 130/92 387/1995  (491)/93 2174,   2176,  2177,  2178,  2201,  2226,  2228,  2832,  2234,  2265,  2331,  2214,  2236 13-17-5/  41927.13 Dhan  Prakash 15,37,362-94 45,28,878-60 6 115/92 388/1995 2523,  2524,  2514,  2510/2,  1261 0-18-0 0-18-0 1-0-0 1-8-0 1-2-0 5-6-0/ 16029.85 Preetam   Singh 25,88,070-28 17,31,510-00 7 91/1992 389/95  1009/02 2563 3-0-0/  9073.50 Jay   Bhagwan 3,32,636-14 9,80,100-00 8 126/92 390/1995 2549 2-14-0/  8166.15 Chandra  Bhan 1,06,440-42 8,82,010-00 9 125/92 391/1995 1240,  2475,  2483,  2486 10-10-0 1-3-3 4-4-10 1-12-0 16-10-13/ 50002.54 Onkar  Singh 48,59,938-24 54,01,167-60 10 124/92 392/1995   (499)/ 93 2539, 2541 1-10-4 2-10-2 4-6-0/  13005.35 Om  Prakash 4,77,434-96 14,04,810-00 11 248/92 393/1995 2205,  2438,  2447,  2450,  24641,  2521,  2524,  2442,  2436,  2437 0-15-3 1-10-3 0-10-3 0-15-3 1-15-3 3-5-2 0-10-2 0-15-2 0-5-1 11-6-0/  34176.85 Trilok  Chand 12,54,314-56 37,02,510-00 12 105/92 399/1995 2481, 1281 1-6-0 1-13-0 2-19-0/8922.275 Gopi   Chand 6,57,602-20 9,63,765-00 13 46/1992 400/1995 2231 0-8-0/1209.80 Gopal Singh 44,497-29 1,30,680-00 14 128/92 401/1995 1266 1-14-10/5292.84 Puneet Kotra 1,72,894-98 5,55,350-00 15 108/92 420/1995 1246/2, 1247/2, 2487, 2488, 2515, 2516/1, 2517/1, 2572/, 2573 0-5-2 0-10-2 2-5-2 0-10-0 1-0-2 0-10-3 0-11-3 0-0-2 1-10-3 7-19-0/ 24044.78 Brahmadutt 4,82,844-85 25,97,184-00 16 85/1992 421/1995 2179/1, 2180, 2201, 2215, 2224, 2231, 2439, 2463/1, 2536, 2536 2-0-0 1-3-0 1-15-1 2-0-0 0-15-6 0-5-3 1-15-2 1-5-12 1-0-10 1-2-0 12-1-15/ 36558.64 Singh Gopal 1347120-30 39,48,986-10 17 24/1992 422/1995 2565 3-10-0/10585.75 Baleshwar Dayal 3,90,870-00 11,43,450-00 18 90/1992 423/1995 21, 178, 69, 253, 251, 669, 353, 424 1-14-10 1-17-6 2-6-0 6-6-10 1-16-10 16-18-0 7-19-0 1-7-0 34-14-16/ 105071.13 Satpal 35,70,943-90 1,13,49,558-00 19 09/1992' 432/1995 2596, 2599,  2594,  2590 1-8-0 1-1-0 1-10-0 0-8-0 4-7-0/  13156.57 Ramesh  Chand 4,82,419-00 14,21,145-00 20 82/1992 433/1995 653/  2563 3-4-0/  9678.4 Harish  Chand 3,55,978-28 10,45,440-00 21 13/1992 437/1995 2489 0-13-5/  2003.73 Ramesh  Chand 3,665-41 10,800-00 22 103/92 438/1995 2481, 2491,  2598 1-4-0 0-3-0 1-4-0 2-11-0/  7712.475 Ramesh  Chand 7,36,113-03 8,33,085-00 23 133/92 439/1995 609/  1202,  1204 1-16-0 0-5-0 2-1-0/  6200.225 Sandeep  Bhatia 2,27,835-96 3,43,035-00 24 12/1992' 450/1995  (488)/93 2522,  2577 3-4-0 1-8-0 4-12-0/  13912.7 Harkesh 5,11,111-27 15,02,820-00 25 80/1992 451/1995 1217,  1218,  1219,  2199,  2200, 2516,  2199 0-11-1/3 0-3-10 0-12-2 0-16-0 2-8-0 0-10-0 1-12-04-2- 4869.44 Vijai Singh 1,54,424-83 13,39,470-00 26 92/1992 452/1995   (496)/93 1254/2, 1255/ 0-11-0/   1663.47 Ishwar  Dayal 63,158-14 1,79,685-00 27 29/1992 453/1995 1168, 12622,  1268 1-4-0 3-0-0 0-8-0 4-12-0/  13912.7 Om  Prakash 5,10,139-27 15,02,820-00 28 134/92 454/1995 277/  1264 1-8-0/  4234.258 Devendra  Singh 1,56,348-00 4,57,280-00 29 56/1992 455/1995 1532 100 Sq. Yard Ishwar 6,865-41 10,800-00 30 132/92 470/1995 2569 3-8-14/  10389.15 Ishwar  Kumar 3,80,914-55 11,22,214-50 31 14/1992 484/1995 2567 1-1-0/  3175.725 Tek Chand 1,17,261-00 3,43,035-00 32 116/92 485/1995 2441 0-16-0/  2419.60 Sanjay 79,882-07 2,61,360-00 33 109/92 486/1995 2616 1-3-0/  3478.175 Ishwar  Kumar 1,23,464-57 3,75,705-00 34 31/192 487/1995 2202, 2570,  2566 0-0-3 0-5-3 0-5-4 1-7-0/  4083.075 Ram Autar 1,10,878-72 3,26,700-00 35 27/1992 488/1995 1239 2-11-0/  7712.475 Raj Pal 5,30,730-72 8,33,085-00 36 139/92 490/1995 1218 100 Sq. Yard Smt Ved  Kumari 3,665-41 10,800-00 37 23/1992 492/1995 2582 0-18-0/  2722.05 Smt.  Shanti Devi 99,960-00 2,94,030-00 38 136/92 493/1995 279/  1267/2 2-6-16/  7077.33 Devendra  Singh 6,13,008-19 7,52,716-80 39 122/92 494/195 2495 2-2-0/  6351.45 Ishwar  Kumar 2,33,307-00 6,86,070-00 40 110/92 566/95 28/  1249,  1250 1-7-0 1-7-10  2-12-10/  7939.313 Ram Niwas 1,71,984-85 8,57,587-50 41 104/92 567/1995  437/1997 740/  2563/3 3-4-0/  9678.4 Ram Lal 3,54,884-78 10,40,04-00 42 15/1992 570/1995 104/  126012,  2475,  2483,  2486 10-12-0  1-3-0 2-4-0 4-11-3 18-10-13/  56051.55 Hari Singh 2,79,222-83 60,54,567-60 43 88/1992 571/1995 105  1267/2,  2483 1-13-17  0-2-0 1-15-17/  5421.41 Onkar  Singh 21,740-84 5,85,609-75 44 21/1992 572/1995 104/  1260/2,  2465,  2483,  2486 0-12-10  1-3-0 2-4-10 1-14-0  18-13-13/  56505.22 Atar Singh 79,222-85 60,54,567-60 45 25/1992 573/1995 2570 2-5-0/  6805.12 Nain Singh 2,l49,537-60 7,35,075-00 46 138/92 574/1995  1002/99 71/2220,  2221 3-15-4 3-15-4 7-18-0/  23893.55 Ishwar  Dayal 8,76,695-13 25,80,930-00 47 98/1992 582/1995 1239, 1240 1-3-0 2-9-0 3-12-0/  10888.2 Ram Kumar 6,29,563-37 11,76,120-00 48 26/1992 695/1995 170/  2470,  2471 0-4-0 0-2-120- 6-12/  19961.7 Kusum  Rani 36,654-12 8,33,085-00 49 5/1992' 696/1995 225 0-10-3/  1355 Jitendra  Kumar 72,095-46 1,65,800-00 50 106/92 697/1995 1220, 1221,  2199,  2535,  2545 0-5-4 1-0-4 0-5-0 1-0-4 0-10-3 3-15-0/  11341.88 Lakhi Ram 4,70,545-17 12,25,125-00 51 112/92 701/1995 725 2-4-0/  6653.90 Ganga  Prasad 2,44,127-57 7,18,740-00 52 99/1992 705/1995 616/  2564 3-9-0/  10434.53 Hemanti 6,83,941-56 11,29,115-00 53 19/1992 706/1995 959M 266.66 Sq  Yard Veena Seth 23,289-00 28,799-28 54 117/92 707/1995 1267/2,  2264/1,  2273 0-2-18 0-9-7 1-9-10 1-12-6-10 /4887.5 Hari Singh 3,82,226-83 5,28,028-86 55 107/92 708/1995 422/   2629/2 3-10-0/  10585.75 Moola 3,89,047-49 11,49,930-00 56 22/1992 709/1995 2620 2-1-0/  6200.22 Ami Chand 2,30,326-72 6,69,735-00 57 129/92 424/1995 209/  2627,  2627,  2629,  2630,  2624,  2625,  2565 0-10-0 0-5-0 3-15-2 0-1-2 0-10-2 0-10-0 3-15-4 7-2-6/ 21519.32 Majid 7,88,473-15 23,24,492-10 58 180/92 724/1995 104/  1260/2,  2475/1  2483/1  2486/1  1267/2 20-2-19/  60936.11 Dhanpal  Singh 48,59,938-24 65,82,060-00 59 247/92 727/1995 641/  2423,  2454 1-15-0  1-0-2  2-3-0/  6502.67 Suresh  Kumar 2,08,535-00 7,02,405-00 60 135/92 728/1995 2206, 2208,  2209,  2213,  2631 0-15-4   1-15-2 5-5-4 2-5-3 2-15-0  13-8-0/  40528.30 Ami  Chandra 14,87,621-55 43,77,780-00 61 81/1992 729/1995  879/2014 2204,  2212/2,  2216/1,  2218,  2222/2,  2222/4,  2229,  2564,  2425,  2461,  2538,  2538,  2535,  2618,  2638,  2210/2,  2533 1-3-0 0-18-0 0-0-13 1-2-0 1-13-0 0-6-0 0-4-0 0-16-5 1-2-13 0-10-0 1-19-0 3-1-0 0-12-0 2-10-0 0-14-0 0-5-0 0-14-0 17-0-11/  51499.67 Ami Chand 18,81,413-63 55,62,884-10 62 37/1992 730/1995  848/2014 1235, 1236 2-2-0/  6079.245 Pooran 2,33,307-00 6,86,070-00 63 96/1992 731/1995 250/  1250,  1249 1-7-0 1-5-0 2-12-0/  7863.70 Rameshwar 1,71,984-05 8,49,420-00 64 84/1992 52/1997 1260,  1211,  2240,  2441,  2224/1,  2244,  2247,  2234,  2475,  2483,  2486, 2510,  2458 0-12-10  0-7-0 1-10-0 1-9-13-1-3 0-5-0 0-2-10 1-11-10  1-3-0 2-4-10 1-14-0 1-5-0 1-1-0 18-1-13/  54690.52 Bharat   Bhushan 48,59,938-24 60,54,567-60 65 89/1992 699/1997 2472 1-6-0/  3931.85 Pankaj Roy 1,44,190-93 4,25,710-00 66 349/92 489/1995 652/  1245/2 0-7-0/   1058.57 Liptar  Singh 30,087-00 1,14,345-00 67 120/92 698/1995  522/09 2502 1-2-0/  3326.95 Pradeep  Kumar 1,22,185-25 3,59,370-00 68 17/1992 700/1995 27/  2436,  2437 2-11-7-5/  7767.294 Atar Singh 7,30,587-84 8,39,006-63 69 18/1992 702/1995 104/  2483,  2486,  1260/2  2475 2-4-0 1-14-0 0-12-10  1-3-0 18-10-13/  56051.54 Devendra 48,59,938-00 60,54,567-60 70 245/92 53/1997 2165,  2166,  2558,  2578,  2579,  2175,  2419,  2203,  2203,  2204,  2205,  2223,  2233,  2264,  2543 1-3-0 0-17-0 0-18-0 0-15-0 0-14-0 1-6-0 0-7-0 4-16-0 0-14-0 0-16-5 1-0-0 1-8-0 0-1-0 1-5-0 16-17-5/  51000.60 Ramnath 38,49,584-81 55,08,978-60 71 123/92 491/1995 2632 1-16-0/  5444.10 Hari Dutt 1,99,873-28 5,89,000-00 72 3/1992' 703/1995 278/  2563/2 3-10-0/  10585.75 Devendra  Singh 3,90,878-00 11,43,450-00 73 118/92 704/1995 2540,  2563/1 0-16-0 3-8-0 4-4-0/  12702.90 Chhajju  Ram 4,66,613-99 13,72,140-00 74 113/92 569/95 425/  2230,  2235,  2236,  2235,  2242,  2434/2,  2483/2,  2504,  2510 1-12-0 1-16-0 1-10 1-0-0 0-17-0 1-16-10  2-5-10 1-17-0  13-14-0/   41437.65 Mahesh  Chand 36,04,898-37 44,75,790-00 75 111/92 694/1995  919/2014 70/ 2576 1-12-0/ 4839.20 Ishwar  Dayal 1,34,249-14 5,22,720-00 76 104/92 437/1997 740/  2563/3 3-4-0/  9678.40 Ram Pal 3,54,884-78 10,40,040-00 77 37/192 848/2014 1235,  1236 2-2-0/ 6351.45 Pooran 2,33,307-00 6,86,070-00 78 120/92 522/2009 2502 1-2-0/  3726.95 Pradeep  Kumar 1,22,185-29 3,59,370-00 79 111/92 919/2014 70/  2576 1-12-0/  4839.20 Ishwar  Dayal 13424914 5,22,720-00 80 50/1992 693/1998 238/237  2476,  2595,  2482 0-19-0 1-11-0 0-4-0 0-19-0 3-13-0/  11039.43 Har Saran 4,28,169-06 11,70,372-50 *81 20/1992 698/1998 455/  2165,  2166/1  2165,  2203,  2206,  2225,  2226,  2233,  2419/1, 2464/1,  2543,  2558,  2578,  2579,  2419/1 1-3-0 0-17-0 1-6-0 4-16-0 0-14-0 0-16-5 1-0-0 1-8-0 0-17-0 0-1-0 1-5-0 0-18-0 0-15-0 0-14-0 0-7-0 16-17-5/  50996.41 Mangoo 38,49584-81 54,06,960-50 *82 131/92 695/1998 400/  2436/1 0-4-0/  604.00 Mangoo 65,735-74 64,130-00 *83 97/1992 539/2002 92/  1222, 2460,  2519,  2529,  2530 0-12-0 1-14-0 0-10-0 0-17-0 0-4-0 3-17-0/ 11644.33 Om  Prakash 376,193-25 1234502-50 84 132/92 486/2014 2569 3-8-14/  10389.15 Ishwar  Kumar 3,80,914-55 11,22,214-50 *85 102/92 750/2014 73/2569 2-4-6/  6699.26 Ishwar  Kumar 2,46,236-67 7,10,239-75 *86 38/1992 694/1998 246/   2482 1-1-0/  3175.72 Tirpati 1,15,187-00 3,36,682-50 87 342/92 (363)/99 2619 6-18-0/  20869.05 Atar Singh 2308230-00 88 28/1992 (520)/93 2479, 2534,  2441 5-5-0/   7712.48 Raghubar  Dayal 283214-57 833085-00 13. The SLAO in his award had determed the fair value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 92 /- per square yard and after applying 20% deduction towards development etc., the land holders were held entitled to payment of compensation at the rate of Rs. 72/- per square yard besides 30% solatium and interest as provided under the Act, 1894. 14. The tenure holders were dissatisfied with the compensation so determined. Therefore, they approached the Collector by filing applications under Section 18 of the Act, 1894 for a reference being made for determination of fair market value of the acquired land to the Court concerned. Reference made were registered as Land Acquisition Reference Nos. 1/1992 to 57/1992 and LAR Nos. 80/1992 to 139/1992. All the reference were clubbed together and LAR No. 1/1992 was made the leading case. Later on, LAR Nos. 245/1992, 247/1992 and 248/1992 were also consolidated with leading LAR No. 1/1992 and came to be transferred to the Court of VIIIth Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad, besides one more LAR No. 349/1992. That is how 80 Land Acquisition References were heard and decided by a common award dated 24.3.1993 by Reference Court. The other references were decided vide award dated 30.4.1993 by the District Judge. It is against these two awards that the present bunch of first appeals have been filed. 15. The claimants/tenure holders before this Court seek enhancement of rate of compensation contending therein that market value as determined by the reference Court is on much lower side and that no deduction ought to have been made. In the appeals, it is contended that market value should have been determined in the light of circle rates fixed by the Collector for the year 1987-1989 in respect of Vaishali and Indrapuram areas as was brought on record before the reference Court vide paper No. 14-Ga and 15-Ga. They have also questioned the applied deduction of 20 per cent. 16. One of other grounds which has been pressed in the present appeal before us is that in respect of the land of the same village, Makanpur, Pargana-Loni, Tehsil-Dadri, District-Ghaziabad with reference to land acquition notification under Section 4 dated 12th September, 1986, the rate of compensation has been fixed at the rate of Rs. 16. One of other grounds which has been pressed in the present appeal before us is that in respect of the land of the same village, Makanpur, Pargana-Loni, Tehsil-Dadri, District-Ghaziabad with reference to land acquition notification under Section 4 dated 12th September, 1986, the rate of compensation has been fixed at the rate of Rs. 297/- per square yard by a Division Bench of this Court in a bunch of appeals leading being Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Kashi Ram and others, First Appeal No. 910 of 2000. The First Appeal No. 910 of 2000 alongwith connected appeals, was decided on 13.11.2014. 17. It is submitted that the fair market value of the land of the same village in the year 1988 cannot be any less than the rate applied in respect of notification dated 12th September, 1986. It is submitted that the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act 1894 qua the land holding of the appellants is 15.3.1988 i.e. nearly one and half years subsequent to the notification made in respect of the same village for the purposes of planed development of Ghaziabad Development Authority, subject-matter of consideration in the case of Ghaziabad Development Authority (supra). 18. Counsel for the appellants submits before us that during this period of one and half years, market value of the land had increased further and by no stretch of imagination, could it be said that the valuation of the land had been reduced so as to deny the compensatin at the rate of Rs. 297/- per square yard to the appellants/tenure holders. It is submitted before us that the valuation of the land will not have much relevance vis-a-vis the development authority for which the land is proposed to be acquired by the State Government The potentiality of the land has to be seen for arriving at a fair and just market value of the same. 19. Counsel for the appellants further pointed out that the exemplars which were filed by the appellants before the reference Court, may not have reflected the true fair value specifically in view of the judgment passed in the case of Ghaziabad Development Authority (supra). The exemplars cannot be taken as the decisive factor for deciding fair and just compensation to be paid to the farmers. The exemplars cannot be taken as the decisive factor for deciding fair and just compensation to be paid to the farmers. It is stated that fair compensation has to be paid to the farmers in lieu of the land which is compulsorily acquired by the State Government This Court must ensure that the farmers are provided just and fair value of the land instead of State being permitted to take shelter behind technicalities like exemplars etc. 20. It is explained that this Court while rejecting the claim for payment of compensation at the rate of Rs. 297/- per square yard earlier even after taking note of the judgment in the case of Ghaziabad Development Authority (supra) whereunder the market value of the land of village Makanpur with reference to the notification issued on 12.9.1986, was determined at the rate of Rs. 297/- per square yard, did not record any cogent reasons, nor it was examined as to how appellants could be denied the same rate when the notification in question was of the year 1988 i.e. 1-1/2 years subsequent to the notification which was under consideration in the case of Ghaziabad Development Authority (supra). 21. Against the judgement dated 13.11.2014 in the case of Ghaziabad Development Authority (supra), Special Appeals were filed by the Ghaziabad Development Authority leading being SLP (C) No. 5815 of 2015. The same were dismissed by the Apex Court vide judgement and order dated 5.5.2015. A review application was filed being Review Petition (C) No. 3632 of 2015 before the Apex Court, which was also dismissed on 6.10.2015. Thereafter, a Currative Petition (C) No. 94 of 2016 was filed under Article 32 of Constitution of India, which was also dismissed by the Apex Court on 15.3.2016. Copies of the orders passed in aforesaid cases have been handed over to the Court today, which are taken on record. 22. It is therefore, submitted that the order dated 13.11.2014 passed in the case of Ghaziabad Development Authority (supra) has attained finality and it would be fair and just that this Court may provide compensation at the rate of Rs. 22. It is therefore, submitted that the order dated 13.11.2014 passed in the case of Ghaziabad Development Authority (supra) has attained finality and it would be fair and just that this Court may provide compensation at the rate of Rs. 297/- per square yard to the appellants/claimants with futher increase of 10 percent having regard to the fact that the notification in the case of Ghaziabad Development Authority (supra) in respect of part of the same village Makanpur was of the year 1986 while the notification under consideration before us in respect of the same village is of the year 1988. 23. Sri Ramendra Pratap Singh, leanred counsel for the NOIDA, disputes the correctness of the contentions raised on behalf of the appellants. He submits that unless an error is pointed out in the order of the reference Court,with reference to the evidence led before it by the claimants, this Court in exercise of its appellate power, need not interfere with the order passed. It is submitted that from the exemplars which were filed by the claimants before the reference Court, the highest rate disclosed was Rs. 135/- per square per yard which has been determined as the rate for payment of compensation for the land of village Makanpur by the reference Court. Therefore, no illegality can be attributed to the order under appeal. 24. It is futher submitted that no parity can be drawn by the appellants with the rates determined in respect of the notification under Section 4 dated 12.9.1986 pertaining to the same village inasmuch as the said acquisition was made for providing land to Ghaziabad Development Authority which had been in existence since 1973 while the notification under consideration dated 15.3.1988 had been made for acquiring the land for NOIDA which had been statutorily constituted only in the year 1976 and was nearly ten years old on the date of the notification. It is explained that the Ghaziabad was a planned and developed city in the year 1986 while NOIDA was still to be established as a planned city in the year 1988. Therefore, rates had to be differentally determined. Reference is also made to the order of the High Court passed in First Appeal No. 459 of 1995, NOIDA v. Smt. Charan Kaur and another, whereby the appeal filed by the NOIDA against the determination of the rate of compensation at the rate of Rs. Therefore, rates had to be differentally determined. Reference is also made to the order of the High Court passed in First Appeal No. 459 of 1995, NOIDA v. Smt. Charan Kaur and another, whereby the appeal filed by the NOIDA against the determination of the rate of compensation at the rate of Rs. 106/- per square yard in respect of land covered by the same notification, had been allowed by another Division Bench and the reference Court has been directed to decide the issues afresh. 25. We need not burden our judgement with the case law, as per the judgements of the Apex Court as well as of the other Benches of this Court in the matter of determination of fair market value of the acquired land. The compensation to be paid to the land owners has to be fair market value to be ascertained having regard to the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act 1894. It is no doubt true that for ascertaining the fair market value of the acquired land, the potentiality of the land acquired, the exemplars filed by the appellants of the same locality and their closeness to the date of acquisition etc. are factors to be taken into consideration the purpose being to ensure that land holders receive fair and just value for the acquired land. 26. From the records of the present appeal, we find that with reference to the acquisition notification pertaining to the same village Makanpur dated 12th September, 1986, a Division Bench of this Court had found that compensation at the rate of Rs. 297/- per square yard would be fair and just. This order of Division Bench of the High Court in the case of Ghaziabad Development Authority (supra) stands affirmed up to the Apex Court with the dismissal of the Special Leave Petitioin, Review Petition and Curative Petition filed on behalf of NOIDA as detailed in para-21 of this judgment. 27. Therefore, one of the questions which needs to be examined by us is, can the appellants be denied the same rate of compensation only because the exemplars filed by them before the reference Court did not disclose the rate which they seek now in terms of the judgment of the High Court in the case of Ghaziabad Development Authority (supra). 28. 28. We are definitely of the opinion that similarly situated farmers, whose land holding in the same village, has been acquired under subsequent notifications, would be entitled to the benefit of the rate which had been determined by the High Court in respect of earlier notification. The land of the farmers acquired under the subsequent notification similarly situate, cannot be any less valuable than the one determined by the Court in respect of earlier Notification, except for special reasons. 29. It is settled law that the compensation under the Act 1894 has to be fair and just. Fairness requires that all those similarly situate are treated similarly. Techenalities qua rate as per exemplers filed by poor farmers, who are illeterate, has to be given only such importance as may not defeat their right of fair and just compensation qua compulsory acquition of land holdings. 30. We may record that nothing much could be added by the counsel for the development authority in the matter of determination of compensation at the rate of Rs. 297/- per square yard in the case of Ghaziabad Development Authority (supra). The matter stands settled up to the Apex Court. The determination of compensation at the rate of Rs. 297/- per square yard in the case of Ghaziabad Development Authority (supra) has, therefore, to be taken as the fair rate determined for the land situated in the village Makanpur with regard to the notification issued on 12th September, 1986 as well as under Notification dated 15.3.1988. 31. Needless to say that the value of the land in districts like Ghaziabad, Gautam Budha Nagar (NOIDA) etc. increases day by day. Therefore, by no strech of imagination can it be said that the value of the land situated at village Makanpur has not increased vis-a-vis the value of the land which was determined with regard to the notification issued in the year 1986. We can safely record that the value of the land of village Makanpur must have increased during this period i.e between the notification dated 12.9.1986 and the notification dated 15.3.1988. 32. We can safely record that the value of the land of village Makanpur must have increased during this period i.e between the notification dated 12.9.1986 and the notification dated 15.3.1988. 32. In the facts of this case the only distinguishing feature pointing out is that the land of the same village Makanpur which was acquired under Notification dated 12.9.1986 was for planned development of Ghaziabad Development Authority while the land of the same village Makanpur acquired under Notification dated 15.3.1988 is for planned Industrial Development Authority for NOIDA, no other special reasons have been disclosed to us for not providing the same compensation as determined by the Court in the case of Ghaziabad Development Authority (supra) to the appellants. 33. Another reason for the same conclusion flows from the intent of Section 28-A of the Land Acquition Act, 1894 which reads as follows: “28A. Re-determination of the amount of compensation on the basis of the award of the Court: (1) Where in an award under this Part, the Court allows to the applicant any amount of compensation in excess of the amount awarded by the Collector under Section II, the persons interested in all the other land.covered by the same notification under Section 4, sub-section (I) and who are also aggrieved by the award of the Collector may, notwithstanding that they had not made an application to the Collector under Section 18, by written application to the Collector within Ihree months from the date of the award of the Court require that the amount of compensation payable to them may be re-determined on the basis of the amount of compensation awarded by the Court; Provided that in computing the period of three months within which an application to the Collector shall be made under Ihis sub-seclion, the day on which the award was pronounced and the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the award shall be ex.cluded. (2) The Collector shall, on receipt of an application under sub-section (I), conduct an inquiry after giving notice to all the persons interested and giving them a reasonbble opportunity of being heard and make an award determining the amount of compensation payable to the applicants. (2) The Collector shall, on receipt of an application under sub-section (I), conduct an inquiry after giving notice to all the persons interested and giving them a reasonbble opportunity of being heard and make an award determining the amount of compensation payable to the applicants. (3) Any person who has not accepted the award under sub-section (2) may, by written application to the Collector, require that the matter be referred by the Collector for the determination of the Court and the provisions of Sections 18 to 28 shall, so far as may be, apply to such reference as they apply to a reference under Section 18. “ 34. From a simple reading of the said section, it is apparently clear that a farmer, who had not filed any application against the award of Special Land Acquisition Officer for making a reference under Section 18 of the Act, becomes entitled to grant of compensation at the higher rate, if the Court awards higher compensation in respect of the land covered by the same notification to the other tenure holders. The farmer is only required to make an application to the Collector for re-determination of his compensation in terms of the order of the Court. 35. At the very outset, it may be recorded that we are not holding that Section 28A of Act 1894 is attracted in the facts of the case. What we are recording is that from a reading of Section 28A of Act 1894 what flows is that even in absence of exemplars and other evidence, higher compensation can be allowed to a tenure holder only on the plea that the ‘Court’ has enhanced the compensation for others whose land was acquired under the same notification. 36. ‘Court’ as referred under Section 28-A of Act 1894, would necessarily include the first appellate Court, namely, the High Court as the appeal under Section 54 of Act 1894 is only a continuation of original proceedings. ‘Court’ has been defined under Section 3 (d) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as follows : “3(d) the expression “Court” means a principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction, unless the [appropriate Government] has appointed (as it is hereby empowered to do) a special judicial officer within any specified local limits to perform functions of the Court under this Act;” 37. In our opinion, therefore what follows is that the orders passed by the Court including the first appellate Court i.e. High Court, in the matter of determination of rate of compensation in respect of land covered by a particular notification, would be a relevant consideration to be taken into account for determining as to what would be the fair and just compensation for similarly situated tenure holders, whose lands has been acquired under the same notifications or notifications issued thereafter qua the same village/area. 38. Strictly speaking Section 28A of Act 1894 is applicable in respect of land covered by same notification but if the land of the same village/area is acquired under a subsequent notifications then the rate of compensation cannot be any less than the rate determined by the Court for the land covered by first notification unless some special reasons exist. 39. The rate to be provided in such cases if not higher, must be the same as determined by the ‘Court’ in respect of the land covered by the earlier notification provided always that the land covered by subsequent notification is situate in the same village/area and there are no special reasons to provide a lesser compensation. 40. We draw support from para-27 of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of The Land Acquisition Officer, City Improvement Trust Board v. H. Narayanaiah and others, 1976 (4) SCC 9 . Para-27 of the judgment reads as follows : “In Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bombay v. Lakhamsi Ghelabhai, Shelat J, held that judgments not inter partes, relating to land acquired are not admissible merely because the land dealt with n 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. 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 he value of some piece of land not dealt within at all in the judgment admitted in evidence. Even slight differences in situation can, sometimes, cause considerable differences in value. They embody findings or opinions relating to facts in issue and investigated in different cases. The existence of a judgment would not prove he value of some piece of land not dealt within 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 anti 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 Fizuddin v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (C.A. No. 176 of 1962, decided on April 10, 1963. From the Judgment and Decree/Order dated April 26, 1967 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Appeal 64 of 1962) 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. 41. We are also of the opinion that in view of the fact that the land of the appellants was acquired in 1988, and because the statute does not empower the authorities or reference Court to deduct any amount from the market value determined specifically when no development of the land had been shown to have taken place nor any amount has been spent for the same, there should be no deduction from the rate so determined. We draw support from the judgement in the case of Jagdish Chandra and others v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority and another, 2008(1) ADJ 253 and Ganeshi Singh v. State of U.P. and others, 2008(5) ADJ 306 . 42. The appeals of the tenure holders are allowed. The orders of the Reference Court dated 24.3.1993 and dated 30.4.1993 are set aside. It is held that tenure holders shall be entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs. 297/- per square yard. 43. At this stage, counsel for the NOIDA pointed out that there may be deficiency in the Court fees if the rate of Rs. 297/- per square yard is applied and compensation is directed to be granted to the tenure holders by this Court. 44. We, therefore, provide that any deficiency of Court fees detected shall be recovered in accordance with law while preparing final decree by the Court. 45. 297/- per square yard is applied and compensation is directed to be granted to the tenure holders by this Court. 44. We, therefore, provide that any deficiency of Court fees detected shall be recovered in accordance with law while preparing final decree by the Court. 45. The appeals filed by the NOIDA are dismissed and consigned to record. ——————