ORDER : IN C.A. Nos. 18620-18623 OF 2017 S.L.P. (C) No. 12779-12782/2016) 1. Leave granted. Being dissatisfied with the award of compensation, the land owners are before this Court in the present appeals. 2. These appeals have been preferred for enhancement of compensation determined by the High Court vide impugned judgment Order dated 03.02.2015 and consequent upon which acquisition of appellants' land made vide Notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act on 05.01.1991. Total area of 790-16-9 bighas, corresponding to 492.26 acres, was proposed to be acquired. The land is situated in Village Chhalera Bangar, Pargana and Tehsil Dadri, District Ghaziabad. The said Notification was published in the Gazette on 02.02.1991. The last corrigendum was issued on 24.04.1991. The Reference Court enhanced the market value to Rs.297/- per square yard, awarding a compensation of Rs. 222/- per square yard, after making deduction of 25% on account of largeness of area. 3. Being aggrieved by the award of Reference Court, the appellants approached the High Court. The High Court has placed reliance on the award passed in the case of Jagdish Chandra and Others vs. New Okhala Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA). In that case, land had been acquired vide Notification of the year 1989, and compensation was fixed by the Court at the Rate of Rs. 297.50/- per sq. yard. In the present case, land was acquired by Notification of the year 1991. Vide order dated 09.05.2008, the Division Bench did not grant escalation between the years 1989 and 1991. Thereafter, a review application was filed in the High Court; the same was allowed holding, that the appellants would be entitled to increase of 10% per annum; compensation was enhanced, to Rs.340/- per square yard, along with other statutory benefits. 4. It was submitted by learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants that there was evidence on record indicating that the lease deed had been executed in which the land has been leased out for the purpose of constructing a commercial building. The land was auctioned for the aforesaid purpose at the rate of Rs. 4,500/- per square yard. The learned counsel also relied upon the circle rate at the rate of Rs. 1600/- per square yard. He has also referred to the sale deed dated 16.12.1988 in which, the land was sold at the rate of Rs. 400/- per square yard. The land was auctioned for the aforesaid purpose at the rate of Rs. 4,500/- per square yard. The learned counsel also relied upon the circle rate at the rate of Rs. 1600/- per square yard. He has also referred to the sale deed dated 16.12.1988 in which, the land was sold at the rate of Rs. 400/- per square yard. It was urged that the compensation was sought at the rate of Rs. 500/- per sq. yards particularly when the Government had declared circle rate at Rs. 1600/- per sq. yards for the year 1990-1991. The compensation be suitably enhanced. 5. Shri Pramod Swarup, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, has supported the determination made by the High Court and stated that no case for further enhancement of compensation has been made out. 6. Though the High Court has relied upon the decision of Jagdish Chandra (supra) but, in the instant case, evidence was available which, indicated that the price of the land was somewhat more than what has been taken by the High Court for determination of the compensation. Though value fetched in auction of land for commercial building could not have formed the basis for determination of compensation in the instant case. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion, we have to consider the value of sale exemplar of 16.12.1988 at the rate of Rs. 400/- per square yards after making deduction, we take it Rs. 340/- with 15% enhancement for 2 years and 4 months and the value comes to Rs. 449/- per sq. yard. Thus, we award compensation at the rate of Rs.449/- per square yard with statutory benefits. 7. The appeals are allowed to the aforesaid extent. 8. Let the amount be paid as early as possible. IN CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 18634-18635 OF 2017 Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 28776-28777/2016 CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 18636-18714 OF 2017 Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 28438-28516/2016 CIVIL APPEAL No. 18715 OF 2017 Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 36287/2016 CIVIL APPEAL No. 18716 OF 2017 Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 28518/2016 CIVIL APPEAL No. 18717 OF 2017 Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 28517/2016 CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 18720-18723 OF 2017 Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) Nos. 18720-18723 OF 2017 Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) Nos. 37474-37477/2016 CIVIL APPEAL No. 18724 OF 2017 Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 15763/2017 CIVIL APPEAL No. 18725 OF 2017 Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 15762/2017 CIVIL APPEAL No. 18726 OF 2017 Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 23499/2017 9. Leave granted. 10. Learned counsel for the parties have filed certain documents along with the Special Leave Petitions. The said documents are taken on record, particularly the decision of this Court in SLP (C) Nos. 1506-1517/2016, titled as Pradeep Kapoor vs. State of U.P. These documents were not on record before the High Court. They are taken on record. These appeals are remitted back to the High Court for deciding afresh. A prayer is made for consideration of the aforesaid documents. It is open to the parties if they so desire to adduce additional evidence, in that event, the High Court may ask Reference Court to record additional evidence and to record finding and then High Court may decide the appeals afresh. 11. The judgment of the High Court is set aside and the appeals are remitted to the High Court for being decided afresh in accordance with law. 12. The appeals are disposed of accordingly.