JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard Sri D.V. Singh, learned counsel for appellants, Sri Kamlesh Kumar Jaiswal, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Shiyam Yadav, learned counsel for respondent-New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA) and learned Standing Counsel for State. 2. This appeal under Section 54 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has arisen from judgment and award dated 14.5.2001, passed by Shiv Charan, Ist Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad, in 15 Land Acquisition References (herein after referred to as ‘LAR’), including LAR No. 380 of 1996 (Ganeshi and others v. State of U.P. and others). 3. The Reference Court has determined market value for compensation at the rate of Rs. 200/- per square yard. 4. The acquisition relates to land at Village Naurangabad Khagar, District Ghaziabad. 5. Both the learned counsels for parties have also stated that issue raised in appeal are squarely covered by judgment of this Court in similar matter in First Appeal No. 298 of 2015 (Bhawar Singh v. Noida and others), decided on 18.5.2015, wherein this Court passed the following order : “1. This appeal filed by claimant, is directed against the award dated 2.11.2002 and consequential decree dated 20.12.2002 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Ghaziabad in Land Acquisition Reference No. 385 of 1996 and 3 other connected References. 2. Facts in brief are that land belong to the claimant alongwith others, situate in village Naurangabad Khadar, measuring 123-6-9, was acquired for New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as “NOIDA”) vide notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1894”) published in the Official Gazette on 15.2.1992. Possession of land was taken on 31.3.1994. Special Land Acquisition Officer (hereinafter referred to as “SLAO”) made an award determining the rate of Rs. 54.54 per square yard as market value of the land acquired. The claimant being dissatisfied with the amount of compensation awarded, sought reference which has been decided vide award, impugned in this appeal, whereby the Additional District Judge has partly allowed reference and market value of the land acquired has been enhanced to Rs. 200-/ per square yard. The Additional District Judge has also awarded solatium and interest etc. as provided by the Statute. 3. The Reference Court while arriving at market value of Rs. 200-/ per square yard. The Additional District Judge has also awarded solatium and interest etc. as provided by the Statute. 3. The Reference Court while arriving at market value of Rs. 200/- per square yard has actually applied 30 per cent deduction of the market value on the basis of sale-deeds dated 27.6.1989 and 19.6.1990 as also agreement-to-sell dated 19.4.1989 whereunder actual consideration was at the rate of Rs. 297.50 per square yard. 4. We have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record. 5. Sri D.V. Singh, learned counsel for appellant, contended that rate of Rs. 297.50 per square yard was on the basis of exemplars of June, 1989 while acquisition in question commenced with notification issued in the Official Gazette dated 15.2.1992 under Section 4(1) of Act, 1894, therefore, for subsequent two and half years price escalation at the rate of 10 per cent also ought to have been allowed by Reference Court. He also contended that 30 per cent deduction applied by Reference Court was illegal in view of decision of this Court in First Appeal No. 744 of 2001 (Jagdish Chandra and others v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority and others) decided on 14th December, 2007 wherein it was held that no deduction should be allowed to be made in respect to a land which is lying in already developed area and, therefore, this Court modified the award of Reference Court which has allowed 50 per cent deduction on market rate of Rs. 297.50 per square yard which is determined in respect to acquired land and, thereafter allowed payment of compensation without any deduction, i.e., at the rate of Rs. 297.50 per square yard which was initially determined by Reference Court but reduced to Rs. 148.75 per square yard after applying 50 per cent deduction. This decision in Jagdish Chandra and others v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority and others (supra) was followed in a controversy came up for consideration in First Appeal No. 34 of 2007 (Ganeshi Singh and others v. State of U.P. and others, 2008(5) ADJ 306 (DB)) decided on 9.5.2008. Therein the acquisition notification was issued on 2.2.1991 in respect to village Chhalera Bangar, Pergana and Tehsil Dadari, District Ghaziabad. The Reference Court after determining the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 297/- per square yard allowed 25 per cent deduction and awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. Therein the acquisition notification was issued on 2.2.1991 in respect to village Chhalera Bangar, Pergana and Tehsil Dadari, District Ghaziabad. The Reference Court after determining the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 297/- per square yard allowed 25 per cent deduction and awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 222/- per square yard. This Court held that no deduction is permissible and therefore allowed the compensation at the market value of Rs. 297/- per square yard. However, a clarification application No. 326566 of 2009 and Recall Application No. 61276 of 2009 were filed in First Appeal No. 34 of 2007 which came to be disposed of by order dated 19.5.2010. It was brought to the notice of this Court that in Jagdish Chandra and others v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority and others (supra), the acquisition pertain to period of 1989 while the acquisition in Ganeshi Singh and others (supra) was of 1991. Therefore allowing the same rate without any escalation for a difference of 2 years is not consistent with the law laid down by Apex Court in Om Prakash (D) by Lrs. and others v. Union of India and another, JT 2004 (6) SC 288. The Court accepted this contention, allowed the applications and modified its order dated 9.5.2008 in the following manner: “Therefore, we clarify the operative part of the judgement and order dated 09th May, 2008 by saying that the aforesaid sentence will be added with the following lines: “.......meaning thereby that the appellants will be entitled to increment of 10% per annum as per the ratio of the aforesaid judgement but will not exceed Rs. 340/- per square yard since the Court fees have been paid for such figure.” Accordingly, the clarification application is allowed, however, without imposing any cost. The original judgement will be read alongwith the clarification as above. This order of clarification will override the earlier order of review dated 06th February, 2009, as a result whereof the recalling application has become infructuous and is dismissed as infructuous also without imposing any cost. However, we convey our regret for the inconvenience caused to the parties.” 6. The original judgement will be read alongwith the clarification as above. This order of clarification will override the earlier order of review dated 06th February, 2009, as a result whereof the recalling application has become infructuous and is dismissed as infructuous also without imposing any cost. However, we convey our regret for the inconvenience caused to the parties.” 6. Following the aforesaid decision in Ganeshi Singh and others (supra), subsequently another Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Rajes Kumar, J. and Hon’ble Harsh Kumar, J. in First Appeal No. 374 of 2002 (Gyan Chand v. NOIDA and another) and other three connected appeals vide its judgment dated 23.7.2014 allowed the appeals of claimants modifying the order of Reference Court directing for payment of compensation at the rate of Rs. 340/- per square yard. Operative part of the judgment dated 23.7.2014 reads as under: “Accordingly First Appeal Defective No. 374 of 2002 and First Appeal No. 754 of 2013 filed by the claimants stand allowed and they are entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs. 340/- per square yard alongwith other statutory benefits and First Appeals No. 795 of 2003 and First Appeal No. 1200 of 2003 filed by NOIDA are liable to be dismissed and are hereby dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.” 7. Before us, Sri Amit Manohar, learned counsel appearing for NOIDA could not dispute the aforesaid facts and also the fact that issue involved in this appeal is squarely covered by Division Bench decision of this Court, dated 23.7.2014, in Gyan Chand v. NOIDA and another and other connected appeals (supra). Moreover, he also informs that at present Noida has admitted in principle that any land, irrespective of whichever place within the limits of Noida is acquired, shall entail compensation at the same rate. 8. It is also admitted by parties concerned that though the judgment referred to above relate to different villages in NOIDA but in the context of location, development and other relevant factors, there is no distinction in the land of Village Naurangabad Khadar and other villages which were subject-matter of appeals before this Court in Jagdish Chandra and others (supra), Ganeshi Singh and others (supra) and Gyan Chand v. Noida and others (supra). It is virtually admitted before this Court that whatever has been held by this Court in Gyan Chand v. Noida and others (supra), the same squarely applies to the land in question in this appeal also and, therefore, there is no substantial difference to make out a different case for the appellant in this appeal. 9. Since the issues for determination involved in this appeal are squarely covered by the judgement of Division Bench of this Court dated 23.7.2014 in Gyan Chand v. NOIDA and another and other connected appeals (supra), the present appeal is decided in the same terms. 10. Accordingly, this appeal filed by the claimant stand allowed to the extent that the compensation in respect to acquired land shall be paid by determining market value at the rate of Rs. 340/- per square yard. 11. In respect to 30 per cent solatium and interest, the award of Reference Court is hereby confirmed. 12. There shall be no order as to costs.” 6. In view thereof, and for the reasons stated in the aforesaid judgment dated 18.5.2015 and in the same terms this appeal is also allowed and it is held that the appellant shall be entitled for compensation at the rate of Rs. 340/- per square yard, besides other statutory benefits.