JUDGMENT Hon’ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J.—Facts and controversy involved in the above noted two first appeals are similar and, therefore, both the appeals are decided together, treating the First Appeal No. 525 of 1983 as leading appeal. 2. Heard Sri Y.D. Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Sri Shivam Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2. 3. Sri Y.D. Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants submits that this Bench is bound by the Division Bench judgment in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd., 2016 (1) Supreme 319 (para-14) and as such the appellants are entitled for compensation @ Rs. 297/- per square yard as was granted by the Division Bench by order dated 11.2.2012 passed in First Appeal No. 564 of 1997, Khazan and others v. State of U.P., judgment dated 31.7.2014 passed in First Appeal No. 297 of 2002, Dhanesh Kumar v. State of U.P. and other connected appeals, and judgment dated 25.2.2014 passed in First Appeal No. 202 of 2009, Govind v. State of U.P. and others, and other connected appeals. 4. Learned Standing Counsel supports the impugned judgment. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 submits that the compensation is awarded on the market value of the acquired property as on the date of acquisition as per provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. He submits that the submission of learned counsel for the appellants that same market value as determined in respect of the acquisition of the year 1992-93 should be applied to the acquisition made in the year 1976, is wholly misconceived and without reference to any provisions of the Act or the Rules. 6. Despite opportunity afforded to the parties by order dated 17.5.2016 to file written submission within three days, no written submissions have been filed by the parties. 7. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Brief Facts of the Case : 8. 6. Despite opportunity afforded to the parties by order dated 17.5.2016 to file written submission within three days, no written submissions have been filed by the parties. 7. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Brief Facts of the Case : 8. An area of 382 bighas 4 biswas land of village Morna, Pargana and Tehsil Dadri, District Ghaziabad (now Gautam Buddhnagar) was acquired for planned industrial development for New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (for short ‘NOIDA’) by Notification dated 1.6.1976 under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), which was followed by Notification under Section 6(1) of the Act dated 16.9.1976. The possession was taken on 28.10.1976. The award was passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer (New Okhla, Ghaziabad) on 2.5.1977. A reference under Section 18 of the Act was made which was registered as Land Acquisition Reference No. 240 of 1977, Kale v. State which was decided by the Court of District Judge, Ghaziabad by judgment dated 30.11.1981. First Appeal No. 525 of 1983 arises from this judgment. 9. Similarly, Land Acquisition Reference No. 228 of 1977 was made, which was also decided by the Court of District Judge, Ghaziabad by judgment dated 30.11.1981 which is impugned in First Appeal No. 534 of 1983. 10. Before the Court below, the appellants claimed compensation @ Rs. 9/- per square yard (Rs.27,000/- per bigha) which was considered by the Court below in the impugned judgment as under: “The parties gave a joint statement to the effect that the evidence produced in L.A.R. No. 224/77 be also read in these cases. P.W.1 Rati Ram has deposed about the location of the acquired land. According to him village Morna is at a distance of one mile from Gharauli Dairy Farm Colony Delhi and one-and-a-half mile from Intermediate College Sadar Sarai. Moreover, the colonoisers were active in the area and developed colony M/s Dhar Gupta and Association had sold plot No. 39 of this colony to Smt. Khem Lata for a consideration of Rs. 7500/-. In the circumstances the acquired land had considerable scope for development and should be treated as potential building site. The compensation will have to the awarded accordingly. 7500/-. In the circumstances the acquired land had considerable scope for development and should be treated as potential building site. The compensation will have to the awarded accordingly. It has been argued that the land of adjoining villages, viz, Barola, Harola Makhanpur, Chaudha, Sardarpur, Suthari, Raghunathpur was also acquired for NOIDA and the S.L.A.O. awarded compensation upto Rs. 20,000/-, Rs. 18,315/-, Rs. 16,260/- and Rs. 24,450/- per bigha vide copies of awards Exs 1 to 6 respectively. The land of these villages is of the same type as the land in question, therefore, there appears to be no justification for differential treatment. Reliance has also been placed on the judgment dated 17.11.81 in L.A.R. No. 192/77 in which I have awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 6/- per square yard (Rs.18,125/- per bigha). The acquired land in that case was also of the village Morna. There is no good reason why this rate should not be applied to the land in question. I, therefore, hold that the claimants are entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs. 6/- per square yard for their acquired land. The issues are decided accordingly.” 11. Copy of the award filed alongwith the paper book shows that some sale-deed instances were filed before the S.L.A.O. which are summarised as under: Date of Sale-deed Plot No. Area Amount 1 28.5.1975 282 & 283 1 bigha 6 biswas Rs. 6000/- 2 22.8.1975 128 & 129 3 bighas 6 biswas 10 biswansis Rs. 34000/- 3. .......... 136 & 137 1 bigha 15 biswas Rs. 16000/- 12. In the ground No. 2 of the memorandum of appeal, the appellants have made a claim for compensation of the acquired land @ Rs. 9/- per square yard. They took ground that M/s. Dhar Gupta Associates had sold the plot No. 39 to Smt. Khemlata for a consideration of Rs. 7500/- for an area of 200 square yard which works out to Rs. 37.50 per square yard. The appellants have not disclosed the situation of the aforesaid plot and the date on which it was sold. It has also not been disclosed that how far was Sri Nagar Garden Colony from village Morna. Thus, the claim of the appellants for compensation has to be judged from the materials available on record. 13. While the sale-deed instances noted by the S.L.A.O. shows land value between Rs. 5000/- to Rs. It has also not been disclosed that how far was Sri Nagar Garden Colony from village Morna. Thus, the claim of the appellants for compensation has to be judged from the materials available on record. 13. While the sale-deed instances noted by the S.L.A.O. shows land value between Rs. 5000/- to Rs. 10000/- per bigha about a year prior to the date of acquisition, the P.W.-1 RatiRam has deposed that in a developed colony M/s Dhar Gupta and Associates had sold plot No. 39 measuring 200 square yard to one Smt. Khemlata for a consideration of Rs. 7500/- per bigha, which comes to Rs. 37.50/- per square yard. It gives an indication about the market value of the acquired land to be not more than Rs. 20/- per square yard after deduction towards development cost etc. and largeness of the acquired area. 14. In the case of Kanwar Singh and others v. Union of India, (1998) 8 SCC 136 (Paras 9,10 and 11), Hon’ble Supreme Court rejected the contention of the claimants to award same rate of compensation, as was awarded to the claimants of the adjoining villages and held as under : “9. The contention of appellants’ counsel that the appellants deserved to be awarded the same rate of compensation as it was awarded to the claimants of village Masoodpur and Mahipalpur, in the present facts and circumstances of the case, is not tenable. If we go by the compensation awarded to claimants of adjoining village it would not lead to the correct assessment of market value of the land acquired in the village Rangpuri. For example village ‘A’ adjoins village ‘B’, village ‘B’ adjoins village ‘C’, village ‘C’ adjoins village ‘D’, so on and so forth and in that process the entire Delhi would be covered. Generally there would be different situation and potentiality of the land situated in two different villages unless it is proved that the situation and potentiality of the land in two different villages are the same. The High Court in the present case has found that the situation and potentiality of land in village Malikpur Khoi are different than that of village Masoodpur, This finding of the High Court is based on correct appreciation of evidence on record and does not call for interference. The High Court in the present case has found that the situation and potentiality of land in village Malikpur Khoi are different than that of village Masoodpur, This finding of the High Court is based on correct appreciation of evidence on record and does not call for interference. Another reason why the High Court declined to rely upon the judgments referred to above was that the sale instances relating to village Malikpur Khoi were available for determining the market value of the land acquired in village Malikpur Khoi and, as such, there was no need to rely upon the judgments which related to acquired land of different villages. Yet another reason why the two judgments referred to by learned counsel for appellant cannot be relied upon for assessing the market value of acquired land in village Malikpur Khoi was that RFA No. 567/90 filed by the Union of India relating to the grant of compensation in respect of land in village Masoodpur was dismissed summarily, as the only challenge in the appeal was in respect of grant of interest to the claimants which matter was already settled by the Supreme Court. In fact, the High Court had adversely commented upon the working of the Land Acquisition Department of Delhi Administration in not challenging the market value of the land acquired in village Masoodpur as assessed by the Additional District Judge, in Regular First Appeals although the Court fee to that effect was paid. In this connection, it is relevant to reproduce the finding of the High Court, which runs as follows : “Before leaving the judgment, we are constrained to make a few observations regarding the working of the land Acquisition Department in Delhi Administration and contest of these appeals by the counsel for Union of India. Although an appeal filed by the Union of India against the judgment of the ADJ in LAC 186/91 is pending in this Court, this fact was not brought to our notice by the counsel for Union of India. This decision of the ADJ in LAC 186/81 has been substantially relied upon by another ADJ in LAC 15/81. When the appeal against the said decision of the ADJ in LAC 15/81 came before (RFA 567/90) the only question pressed by the counsel for Union of India was in regard to the payment of interest after the amendment in the Land Acquisition Act in 1984. When the appeal against the said decision of the ADJ in LAC 15/81 came before (RFA 567/90) the only question pressed by the counsel for Union of India was in regard to the payment of interest after the amendment in the Land Acquisition Act in 1984. But when we found that the dismissal of the said appeal by the Division Bench was relied upon in Hoshiar Singh v. Union of India, we sent for the file. What is discovered on the file is shocking. The Union of India had purchased stamp worth Rs. 1,19,300. Obviously, the intention was to file an appeal against the quantum of compensation awarded by the ADJ. However, the grounds of appeal mostly relate to the payment of interest in terms of the Amending Act of 1984. The appeal memo was drafted by Mr. Gulab Chandra, Advocate, who also appeared before us in RFA 567/90. Since the questions regarding payment of interest after the Amending Act of 1984 are now fully settled by the decisions of the Supreme Court and since that was the only question argued before us by the counsel for the Union of India, the appeal was dismissed by us we had not noticed at that stage that a stamp of Rs. 1,19,300 was affixed by the Union of India. This was only discovered now. The purchase of stamp worth Rs. 1,19,300 would show that the claim would be over a crore of rupees. The claimants have been benefited because Union of India did not argue the matter on compensation. Apart from the lack of interest and inefficiency in the Land Acquisition matters on behalf of the Land Acquisition Department, these facts raise grave suspicion about the credibility of the working of the said Department. We, therefore, direct that a copy of this judgment be sent to the Lt. Governor for appropriate action.” The judgment of the High Court in RFA No. 567 of 1990 was relied upon in Hoshiar Singh v. Union of India as there was no sale instance in respect of the land in village Mahipalpur available for assessing the market value of acquired land in the village Mahipalpur. Governor for appropriate action.” The judgment of the High Court in RFA No. 567 of 1990 was relied upon in Hoshiar Singh v. Union of India as there was no sale instance in respect of the land in village Mahipalpur available for assessing the market value of acquired land in the village Mahipalpur. It may be seen that in both the cases, the High Court had no occasion to examine the market value of acquired land in Villages Masoodpur and Mahipalpur and under such circumstances, it is not safe to rely upon two judgments of the High Court for arriving at the market value of the land in Village Rangpuri. 10. The High Court has considered the following sale instances in detail which were from the same village, viz., Rangpuri Sl. No. Ext. No. Description of document sale/Regn. Date of Notification Field No., area and Situation Rate per Bigha Rs. 1 A-1 Deed of Sale 03/14/61 14 (2 bighas) Malikpur Kohi 25000 2 A-2 -do- 07/07/62 72 min (6 bis) -do- 4000 3 A-5 -do- 04/28/64 1587/1 (1 bigha) -do- 5000 4 A-2 -do- 10/26/62 1677 (4 bighas) -do- 344 5 R-1 Copy of Mutation 04/09/63 769,770 etc. (91 bighas & 1 bis) -do- 300 6 R-2 Deed of Sale 08/19/64 1637, 1650, 1651, 1652, 1653/1 & 1653/2  (24 bighas) -do- 500 and came to the conclusion that sale transaction with regard to Khashra No. 1587/1 is not genuine sale transaction and, as such, it cannot be relied upon for assessing the market value of the land acquired. The High Court also found that the sale instances of the year 1964 at serial No. 4 and 6 which were nearer to the point of time of notification under Section 4 of the Act, are the best pieces of evidence for assessing the market value of the land acquired. 11. After having considered the sale instances, the High Court assessed the market value of the land acquired @ Rs. 3000 per bigha. The judgment of the High Court is neither perverse nor illegal and does not call for any interference, since it is based on correct appreciation of the evidence on record and proper application of law to the established facts. The appeals are, accordingly,dismissed but in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.” (Emphasis supplied by me) 15. The appeals are, accordingly,dismissed but in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.” (Emphasis supplied by me) 15. The view taken by this Court in determining the market value of the acquired land of village Morna, also finds support from the principles/guidelines settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chiman Lal Hargovinddas v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Poona and another, (1988) 3 SCC 751 (Para 4) which is reproduced below: “4. The following factors must be etched on the mental screen: (1) A reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act is not an appeal against the award and the Court cannot take into account the material relied upon by the Land Acquisition officer in his Award unless the same material is produced and proved before the Court. (2) So also the Award of the Land Acquisition officer is not to be treated as a judgment of the trial Court open or exposed to challenge before the Court hearing the Reference. It is merely an offer made by the Land Acquisition officer and the material utilised by him for making his valuation cannot be utilised by the Court unless produced and proved before it. It is not the function of the Court to sit in appeal against the Award,approve or disapprove its reasoning, or correct its error or affirm, modify or reverse the conclusion reached by the Land Acquisition officer, as if it were an appellate Court. (3) The Court has to treat the reference as an original proceeding before it and determine the market value afresh on the basis of the material produced before it. (4) The claimant 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. Of course the materials placed and proved by the other side can also be taken into account for this purpose. (5) 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 Land Acquisition Act (dates of Notifications under Sections 6 and 9 are irrelevant). Of course the materials placed and proved by the other side can also be taken into account for this purpose. (5) 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 Land Acquisition Act (dates of Notifications under Sections 6 and 9 are irrelevant). (6) The determination has to be made standing on the date line of valuation (date of publication of notification under Section 4) as if the valuer is a hypothetical purchaser willing to purchase land from the open market and is prepared to pay a reasonable price as on that day. It has also to be assumed that the vendor is willing to sell the land at a reasonable price. (7) In doing so by the instances method, the Court has to correlate the market value reflected in the most comparable instance which provides the index of market value. (8) only genuine instances have to be taken into account. (Some times instances are rigged up in anticipation of Acquisition of land). (9) Even post notification instances can be taken into account (1) if they are very proximate,(2) genuine and (3) the acquisition itself has not motivated the purchaser to pay a higher price on account of the resultant improvement in development prospects. (l0) The most comparable instances out of the genuine instances have to be identified on the following considerations: (i) proximity from time angle, (ii) proximity from situation angle. (11) Having identified the instances which provide the index of market value the price reflected therein may be taken as the norm and the market value of the land under acquisition may be deduced by making suitable adjustments for the plus and minus factors vis-a-vis land under acquisition by placing the two in juxtaposition. (12) A balance-sheet of plus and minus factors may be drawn for this purpose and the relevant factors may be evaluated in terms of price variation as a prudent purchaser would do. (13) The market value of the land under acquisition has there after to be deduced by loading the price reflected in the instance taken as norm for plus factors and unloading it for minus factors. (14) The exercise indicated in clauses (11) to (13) has to be undertaken in a common sense manner as a prudent man of the world of business would do. (14) The exercise indicated in clauses (11) to (13) has to be undertaken in a common sense manner as a prudent man of the world of business would do. We may illustrate some such illustrative (not exhaustive) factors: Plus factors Minus factors 1. smallness of size 1. largeness of area 2. proximity to a road 2. situation in the interior at a distance from the Road 3. frontage on a road 3. Narrow strip of land with very small front age compared to depth 4. nearness to developed area 4. lower level requiring the depressed portion to be filled up 5. regular shape 5. remoteness from developed locality 6. level vis-a-vis land under acquisition 6. some special disadvantageous factor which would deter a purchaser 7. special value for an owner of an adjoining property to whom it may have some very special advantage (15) The evaluation of these factors of course depends on the facts of each case. There cannot be any hard and fast or rigid rule. Common sense is the best and most reliable guide. For instance, take the factor regarding the size. A building plot of land say 500 to 1000 sq. yds cannot be compared with a large tract or block of land of say l0000 sq. yds or more. Firstly while a smaller plot is within the reach of many, a large block of land will have to be developed by preparing a lay out, carving out roads, leaving open space, plotting out smaller plots, waiting for purchasers (meanwhile the invested money will be blocked up) and the hazards of an entrepreneur. The factor can be discounted by making a deduction by way of an allowance at an appropriate rate ranging approximately between 20 percent to 50 percent to account for land required to be set apart for carving out lands and plotting out small plots. The discounting will to some extent also depend on whether it is a rural area or urban area, whether building activity is picking up, and whether waiting period during which the capital of the entrepreneur would be looked up, will be longer or shorter and the attendant hazards. (16) Every case must be dealt with on its own fact pattern bearing in mind all these factors as a prudent purchaser of land in which position the Judge must place himself. (16) Every case must be dealt with on its own fact pattern bearing in mind all these factors as a prudent purchaser of land in which position the Judge must place himself. (17) These are general guidelines to be applied with understanding informed with common sense.” (Emphasis supplied by me) 16. In First Appeal No. 458 of 1984, Jagmal and others v. State of U.P., decided on 27.5.2016, this Court determined compensation @ Rs. 28.12 per square yard with respect to land of village Agahapur, Pargana and Tehsil Dadri, District Ghaziabad acquired by Notification published on 16.9.1976 under Section 4(1) of the Act. 17. The appellants have relied upon the judgments in the case of Khajan (supra), Dhanesh Kumar (supra) and Govind (supra) relating to some other villages in which market value of land acquired in much subsequent years was determined at Rs. 297.00 per square yard. The said judgments have no relevance in the present set of facts for reasons that the acquisition in question was made in the year 1976 of lands of a different village. In the case of Bhupal Singh v. State of Haryana, (2015) 5 SCC 801 , Hon’ble Supreme Court specifically considered question of determination of market value and held that the fair market value of the acquired land is required to be determined under Section 23 of the Act on the basis of the market rate of the adjacent lands similarly situated to the acquired lands prevailing on the date of acquisition or/and prior to acquisition but not subsequent to the date of acquisition. Para-27 of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced below: “27. As rightly argued by learned counsel for the respondent, the fair market value of the acquired land is required to be determined under Section 23 of the Act on the basis of the market rate of the adjacent lands similarly situated to the acquired lands prevailing on the date of acquisition or/and prior to acquisition but not subsequent to the date of acquisition. In appropriate cases, addition of 10% per annum escalation in the prices specified in the sale-deeds (if filed and relied on) in relation to adjacent similarly situated lands for fixing the market value of the acquired land may be permitted. Such is, however, not the case in hand. In appropriate cases, addition of 10% per annum escalation in the prices specified in the sale-deeds (if filed and relied on) in relation to adjacent similarly situated lands for fixing the market value of the acquired land may be permitted. Such is, however, not the case in hand. Here is the case where firstly, no sale-deeds were filed by the appellants to prove the fair market value of the acquired land and secondly, what they now want this Court to do is to take into consideration the rate of those lands which were acquired ten years after the date of acquisition in question and then reduce the value of such land by 10% every year so as to determine the fair market value of the acquired land in question. In our view, such procedure for determination is not provided in the Act.” (Emphasis supplied by me) 18. In view of the above discussions, both the appeals are allowed. The market value of the acquired land is determined at Rs. 20/- per square yard. The appellants shall be entitled to compensation @ Rs. 20/- per square yard alongwith statutory benefits and interest after deduction of the compensation already received by them. Deficiency in Court fees shall be deducted and paid at the time of final computation of compensation. ——————