ORDER : 1. Leave granted. 2. These are cross appeals preferred by the State of Haryana as well as by the owners, for enhancement of compensation. The Reference Court has taken into consideration the sale instances of 1995. The acquisition proceedings had been initiated in the instant cases, by issuing Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act') issued on 22.2.2002, whereas the sale deeds which have been taken into consideration by the Reference Court as well as by the High Court are of 1995. As per them, the valuation came to Rs.50 lakhs (Rupees Fifty Lakhs only) per acre and an amount @12% per annum has been added, so as to work out the prices as on the date of Notification under Section 4 of the Act, in these cases. The Reference Court has awarded compensation @Rs.26,52,819/-(Rupees Twenty Six Lakhs Fifty Two Thousand Eight Hundred Nineteen only), with severance charges @20%. 3. The High Court has also relied upon the sale instances of 1995. It was agreed that the prices in 1995 to be taken as base-price and 12% had been added towards annual increase. However, the High Court has not applied 20% cut, which was applied by the trial court for development. Consequently, the High Court has awarded compensation @Rs.32,27,200/-(Rupees Thirty Two Lakhs Twenty Severn Thousand Two Hundred only). 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, though the High Court should have applied a cut for the development, which was applied by the Reference Court. But in the instant cases, there are other evidence on record, which indicate that for the year 1995 acquisition, this Court had awarded a compensation of Rs.20 lakhs per acre, for the land which is from one of the nearby village. 5. Even considering the evidence on record, the subsequent Award relating to 2003 acquisition cannot be taken into consideration, as prices increase with time. When we take into consideration the determination made by this Court with respect to 1994 acquisition after applying the appropriate cut, the amount awarded by the High Court is found to be appropriate. 6. 5. Even considering the evidence on record, the subsequent Award relating to 2003 acquisition cannot be taken into consideration, as prices increase with time. When we take into consideration the determination made by this Court with respect to 1994 acquisition after applying the appropriate cut, the amount awarded by the High Court is found to be appropriate. 6. We place on record that the High Court has totally ignored the decision relied on by Reference Court while making deduction for the development, and cut for development has to be made necessarily, as laid down by this Court in Delhi Development Authority Vs. Kapil Mehra & Ors., (2015) 2 SCC 262 , in which a large number of decisions of this Court have been taken into consideration. The High Court should have considered reasons in the Award rendered by the Reference Court. 7. The appeals are hereby dismissed. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.