JUDGMENT Vivek Singh Thakur, J. - For construction of Ranjit Sagar (Thein Dam) Project, land in Village Khairi and adjoining Villages Bhotan, Lahari and Chuhan etc. was acquired by the State by initiating process under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (herein after referred to as "the Act" for short) by issuing notification under Section 4 of the Act in the months of March/April, 1997. 2. Land owners of these villages had preferred Reference Petitions under Section 18 of the Act for enhancement of compensation, determined by the Land Acquisition Collector in various awards. 3. In present case, award passed by Land Acquisition Collector pertaining to village Khairi was assailed by land owners by preferring Land Acquisition Petition Nos. 83 of 2000, titled Rattan Chand Vs. The General Manager, Ranjit Sagar (Thien Dam) and others; 84 of 2000, titled Balia through LRS Vs. The General Manager Ranjit Sagar Project (Thien Dam), 85 of 2000, titled Giano Vs. The General Manager, Ranjit Sagar (Thien Dam) and others; and 86 of 2000, titled Brahmi Vs. The General Manager Ranjit Sadar (Thien Dam) and others. All these Reference Petitions were clubbed by the Reference Court by making Land Acquisition Petition No. 85 of 2000 Giano Vs. The General Manager, Rajnit Sagar (Thien Dam) and others as a lead case. 4. On the basis of evidence produced before the Reference Court, compensation awarded to the land owners in these cases was enhanced by awarding increase of 30% on the price of land i.e. Rs. 8358/- per biswa assessed by Land Acquisition Collector. 5. Being aggrieved by the award passed by the Reference Court, appellant-beneficiary had preferred 6 separate appeals against the impugned award dated 23.6.2007 passed by Reference Court in aforesaid Land Acquisition Petitions. 6. Out of these 6 appeals, 2 appeals bearing RFA Nos. 257 of 2008, titled General Manager, Ranjit Sagar (Thien Dam) Vs. Rattan Chand and RFA No. 259 of 2008, titled General Manager, Ranjit Sagar (Thien Dam) Vs. Giano and others were dismissed by this High Court vide order dated 20.10.2008 on the ground that as enhanced amount of compensation was meager and the amount involved in these appeals was less than Rs. 50,000/- , there was no justification in issuing notice to the respondents (land owners), particularly when appeals were time barred by more than 383 days. 7. 50,000/- , there was no justification in issuing notice to the respondents (land owners), particularly when appeals were time barred by more than 383 days. 7. Third appeal bearing RFA No. 260 of 2008, titled General Manager, Ranjit Sagar (Thien Dam) Vs. Brahmi and others was also dismissed by another Bench of this High Court on 3.12.2010 being abated for failure in taking steps by appellant for bringing on record legal heirs of respondent No. 1 in the said appeal. 8. Now remaining three appeals being RFA No. 258 of 2008, titled General Manager, Ranjit Sagar (Thein Dam) Vs. Mohinder Kumar and others; 261 of 2008, titled General Manager, Ranjit Sagar (Thein Dam) Vs. Raj Kumar and others; and 262 of 2008, titled General Manager, Ranjit Sagar (Thein Dam) Vs. Bishamber and others along with respective cross-objections therein bearing cross-objection Nos. 47, 95 and 46 of 2018 are being decided by this common judgment, as common question of law and fact based on common evidence recorded by Reference Court is to be adjudicated therein. 9. Land in present cases was acquired by issuing notification dated 9.4.1997 under Section 4 of the Act, which was lastly published on 10.7.1997, whereafter Land Acquisition Collector had determined the value of land by passing award dated 25.8.1998 by determining different rates of the acquired land on the basis of its classification after giving 25% decrease on the sale of land in village Khairi , as according to Land Acquisition Collector, no sale deed in village Khairi was executed during the relevant period for determining the value of land during acquisition. The rate determined by Land Acquisition Collector was ranging from Rs. 19,539/- to Rs. 1,82,362/- per bigha. 10. Land owners in present case have examined five witnesses, claiming compensation at the rate of Rs. 25,000/- per biswa, i.e. Rs. 5,00,000/- per Bigha, mainly on the basis of sale deed Ex. PW-2/A, wherein on 27.7.1997 vide sale deed No. 17 of 1997, PW-3 Chaman Lal had sold 1 biswa of land at the rate of Rs. 25,000/- to PW-4 Kulwant Singh in village Lahari. The land owners have also placed reliance upon award passed by Reference Court i.e. award dated 27.2.2002 passed in LAC Petition No. 44 of 2000, titled Ajay Kumar Vs. General Manager, Ranjit Sagar (Thein Dam) Project (Ex. 25,000/- to PW-4 Kulwant Singh in village Lahari. The land owners have also placed reliance upon award passed by Reference Court i.e. award dated 27.2.2002 passed in LAC Petition No. 44 of 2000, titled Ajay Kumar Vs. General Manager, Ranjit Sagar (Thein Dam) Project (Ex. PW-5/A) and award dated 6.9.2006 passed in Land Acquisition Petition No. 21 of 2000, titled Natha Singh Vs. General Manager, Ranjit Sagar (Thien Dam) and others (Ex. PW-5/D). Land owners by filing an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure have also placed on record award dated 10.12.2009 passed by Reference Court in LAC Petition No. 1 of 1999, titled Amro Vs. The General Manager, Ranjit Sagar Dam, Thein Dam and others. Copy of judgment passed by this High Court in RFA No. 127 of 2010, dated 6.4.2016, dismissing the appeal preferred by The General Manager, Ranjit Sagar Dam, Thien Dam against the award dated 10.12.2009 passed in LAC Petition No. 1 of 1999, has also been placed on record. 11. Appellant/Beneficiary Project proponent has also examined one witness and has placed reliance upon award dated 31.8.2001 (Ex. RX), passed in LAC Petition No. 51 of 2000, titled Jai Shree Vs. The General Manager, Rajnit Sagar (Thien Dam) and others. 12. Sale deed Ex. PW-2/A, pertains to land situated in village Lahari, on the basis of which, value of land in village Lahari is Rs. 5,00,000/- per bigha. Award dated 10.12.2009 passed in LAC Petition No. 1 of 1999, Amro Vs. General Manager, Ranjit Sagar (Thien Dam) and others, affirmed by this High Court, pertains to village Bhotan, wherein notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 7.4.1997 for acquisition of land in the said village for construction of Ranjit Sagar Dam i.e. for the same purpose. In this case, on the basis of sale deed dated 27.3.1997, which has also been relied upon in present case as Ex. PW-2/A, value of land in village Bhotan was determined at the rate of Rs. 3,00,000/- per bigha after making deduction of 40% value of land pertaining to village Lahari. 13. In present case as well as in cases decided vide award Ex. PW-5/A pertaining to village Khairi, land Acquisition Collector has taken the value of land on the basis of value of land situated in village Lahari but after deducting 25% there from. 3,00,000/- per bigha after making deduction of 40% value of land pertaining to village Lahari. 13. In present case as well as in cases decided vide award Ex. PW-5/A pertaining to village Khairi, land Acquisition Collector has taken the value of land on the basis of value of land situated in village Lahari but after deducting 25% there from. In present case it has come on record that highest value of land in village Lahari awarded by Land Acquisition Collector was at the rate of Rs. 25,000/- per biswa. The said value of land in village Lahari was also arrived at on the basis of sale deed Ex. PW-2/A. 14. In award Ex. PW-5/D, value of land in village Bhotan has also been determined on the basis of sale deed of village Lahari after making deduction of 40% in Rs. 5,00,000/- per bigha and compensation has been awarded at the rate of Rs. 15,000/- per biswa, i.e. Rs. 3,00,000/- per bigha. 15. The value of land in award Ex. RX, relied upon by appellant-Project proponent, has been determined by the Reference Court for the land situated in village Lahari at the rate of Rs. 2,77,026/- per bigha after giving enhancement of 10% value in the value determined by Land Acquisition Collector. It is pertinent to notice that in this case Land Acquisition Collector had determined the value of land in village Lahari at the rate of Rs. 2,51,842/- per bigha. Section 4 notification in this case was issued on 19.4.1997. 16. There are two values of land of village Lahari available on record. One is at the rate of Rs. 2,77,026/- per bigha and another is Rs. 5,00,000/- per bigha. Amount of compensation is to be assessed on the basis of highest value of land, therefore, for the purpose of calculation of compensation in present case, value of land in village Lahari is taken as Rs. 5,00,000/- per bigha, as also taken in award dated 10.12.2009 passed in LAC Petition No. 1 of 1999, Amro Vs. General Manager, Ranjit Sagar (Thien Dam) and others and award dated 6.9.2006 passed in Land Acquisition Petition No. 21 of 2000, titled Natha Singh Vs. General Manager, Ranjit Sagar (Thien Dam) and others (Ex. PW-5/D). 17. Land in present case is situated in village Khairi, whereas evidence of value of land, available on record, is of land situated in village Lahari. General Manager, Ranjit Sagar (Thien Dam) and others (Ex. PW-5/D). 17. Land in present case is situated in village Khairi, whereas evidence of value of land, available on record, is of land situated in village Lahari. There is nothing on record to suggest that nature and potential of land situated in village Khairi is identical or equivalent to the land situated in village Lahari. However, it has come on record that village Khairi is adjoining to village Lahari. In aforesaid facts and circumstances, it would be appropriate to make deduction in the value of land to arrive at a fair and just compensation. 18. In award passed in LAC Petition No. 1 of 1999, Amro Vs. General Manager, Ranjit Sagar (Thien Dam) and others and in Land Acquisition Petition No. 21 of 2000, titled Natha Singh Vs. General Manager, Ranjit Sagar (Thien Dam) and others (Ex. PW-5/D), for determining the value of land in village Bhotan, which is also a village adjoining to village Lahari, 40% of deduction has been made by the Reference Court, therefore, it would be fair to make 40% deduction in present case also and accordingly, value of land in village Khairi is determined at the rate of Rs. 3,00,000/- per bigha. 19. In view of above discussion, land owners in present case are held entitled for compensation to be calculated at the rate of Rs. 3,00,000/- per Bigha along with all statutory benefits. 20. Land owners in three appeals have not preferred any appeal for enhancement. Appeals filed by Project Proponent in those cases were dismissed by this Court at initial stage even without service of land owners. Section 28-A of the Act provides redetermination of amount of compensation in case of all those land owners whose land under acquisition is also covered by the same notification. The Apex Court in Narendra and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2017 SCC 426 has held as under:- 6. The matter can be looked into from another angle as well, viz., in the light of the spirit contained in Section 28A of the Act. This provision reads as under: "28-A. Re-determination of the amount of compensation on the basis of the award of the court. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2017 SCC 426 has held as under:- 6. The matter can be looked into from another angle as well, viz., in the light of the spirit contained in Section 28A of the Act. This provision reads as under: "28-A. Re-determination of the amount of compensation on the basis of the award of the court. - (1) Wherein 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 (1) 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 three 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:" 7. It transpires from the bare reading of the aforesaid provision that even in the absence of exemplars and other evidence, higher compensation can be allowed for others whose land was acquired under the same notification. 8. The purpose and objective behind the aforesaid provision is salutary in nature. It is kept in mind that those land owners who are agriculturist in most of the cases, and whose land is acquired for public purpose should get fair compensation. Once a particular rate of compensation is judicially determined, which becomes a fair compensation, benefit thereof is to be given even to those who could not approach the court. It is with this aim the aforesaid provision is incorporated by the Legislature. Once we keep the aforesaid purpose in mind, the mere fact that the compensation which was claimed by some of the villagers was at lesser rate than the compensation which is ultimately determined to be fair compensation, should not be a ground to deny such persons appropriate and fair compensation on the ground that they claimed compensation at a lesser rate. In such cases, strict rule of pleadings are not be made applicable and rendering substantial justice to the parties has to be the paramount consideration. In such cases, strict rule of pleadings are not be made applicable and rendering substantial justice to the parties has to be the paramount consideration. It is to be kept in mind that in the matter of compulsory acquisition of lands by the Government, the villagers whose land gets acquired are not willing parties. It was not their voluntary act to sell of their land. They were compelled to give the land to the State for public purpose. For this purpose, the consideration which is to be paid to them is also not of their choice. On the contrary, as per the scheme of the Act, the rate at which compensation should be paid to the persons divested of their land is determined by the Land Acquisition Collector. Scheme further provides that his determination is subject to judicial scrutiny in the form of reference to the District Judge and appeal to the High Court etc. In order to ensure that the land owners are given proper compensation, the Act provides for 'fair compensation'. Once such a fair compensation is determined judicially, all land owners whose land was taken away by the same Notification should become the beneficiary thereof. Not only it is an aspect of good governance, failing to do so would also amount to discrimination by giving different treatment to the persons though identically situated. On technical grounds, like the one adopted by the High Court in the impugned judgment, this fair treatment cannot be denied to them. 9. No doubt the judicial system that prevails is based on adversarial form of adjudication. At the same time, recognizing the demerits and limitations of adversarial litigation, elements of social context adjudication are brought into the decision making process, particularly, when it comes to administering justice to the marginalized section of the society." 21. Keeping in view the principle propounded in aforesaid pronouncement, land owners in appeals i.e. RFA Nos. 257 of 2008, titled General Manager, Ranjit Sagar (Thien Dam) Vs. Rattan Chand, RFA No. 259 of 2008, titled General Manager, Ranjit Sagar (Thien Dam) Vs. Giano and others and RFA No. 260 of 2008, titled General Manager, Ranjit Sagar (Thien Dam) Vs. Brahmi and others, are also held entitled to get the compensation at the rate of Rs. 257 of 2008, titled General Manager, Ranjit Sagar (Thien Dam) Vs. Rattan Chand, RFA No. 259 of 2008, titled General Manager, Ranjit Sagar (Thien Dam) Vs. Giano and others and RFA No. 260 of 2008, titled General Manager, Ranjit Sagar (Thien Dam) Vs. Brahmi and others, are also held entitled to get the compensation at the rate of Rs. 3,00,000/- per bigha, but subject to payment of court fees on enhanced compensation on or before 30th September, 2020, failing which their right to claim the enhanced compensation shall be forfeited by deeming that they are satisfied with the compensation of land determined by the Reference Court. 22. Appeals are dismissed and cross-objections are allowed in the aforesaid terms. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.