JUDGMENT : 1. This bunch of First Appeals filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, arising out of the orders of the Reference Court, was listed before us pursuant to the order dated 23rd March, 2021 passed by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 1060 and 1061 of 2021 filed by Bulandshahr Khurja Development Authority (In short referred to as “BKDA”). 2. Brief background of the matter before entering into the merits of the case is that two first appeals namely First Appeal No. 264 of 2012 (Bulandshahr Khurja Development Authority Through Secretary vs. Smt. Amir Kuwar and others) and First Appeal No. 3 of 2016 (Bulandshahr Khurja Development Authority vs. Atul Chandra And Another) were decided by a common judgment and order dated 1.7.2019 passed by this Court. Both the said appeals had arisen from two similar but separate awards of the Reference Courts under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (In short referred to as “the Act, 1894”). The market value determined by the Reference Court was upheld by this Court while dismissing the appeals with costs. 3. On a challenge made before the Apex Court, the Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 1034 of 2020 and Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 1286 of 2020 were converted into the Civil Appeal No(s). 1060 of 2021 and 1061 of 2021, which were decided vide judgment and order dated 23rd March, 2021. The observations and directions issued by the Apex Court in the judgment and order dated 23rd March, 2021 are relevant to be noted hereunder:- “Leave granted. We have heard Mr. Basva Prabhu Patil and Mr. V.K. Shukla learned senior counsel, appearing respectively for the appellant and the caveator - respondents, at length. Given the nature of our order dated 06.02.2017 in Civil Appeal Nos. 2124-2125 of 2012 and the fact that 17 appeals are still pending before the High Court, having arisen from orders of the Reference Court after remand, taking all aspects into consideration, we are of the consideration opinion that the High Court was not very correct in relying upon on its own order dated 07.04.2010 in view of our order dated 06.02.2017. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order dated 01.07.2019 and remand the matter to the High Court with a request to hear this matter afresh along with the 17 appeals stated to be pending before it so that there is uniformity in the orders of compensation. In the meantime, the compensation deposited pursuant to our order dated 31.01.2020 may be released to the respondents at the rate of Rs. 103.50 per sq. yd. without prejudice to their rights and contentions for enhancement of the same. The balance deposits may be forwarded to the High Court to abide by a fresh final decision that may be taken by it in the matter. Since the issue of compensation has been hanging fire for over 30 years, we request the High Court to decide the matters expeditiously at its earliest convenience. The appeals stand disposed.” 4. The Development Authority namely 'BKDA' is aggrieved by the orders passed by the Reference Court whereunder compensation at the rate of Rs. 400/-per sq. yd. had been determined while relying upon an exemplar sale deed dated 2.7.1988 wherein a small piece of land of about 100 sq. yds was sold at the rate of Rs. 420/-per sq. yd. Whereas the appeals filed by the claimants are against the orders of the Reference Court rejecting the Land Acquisition Reference (LAR) upholding the award passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) after the matter was remitted in the earlier round of litigation by BKDA. All these appeals have been consolidated pursuant to the directions of the Apex Court dated 23rd March, 2021, noted above. 5. Sri Neeraj Agarwal learned Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of the respondents-claimants in First Appeal No. 155 of 2001 (Bulandshahar Khurja Development Authority vs. Ajay Kumar and Others) filed by the Development Authority and the claimant in First Appeal No. 620 of 2017 (Gauri Shankar Garg vs. State of U.P. and another). Sri Sumit Daga learned Advocate has also appeared on behalf of the claimants whereas Sri Bhupeshwar Dayal learned Advocate has extended his arguments on behalf of the Development Authority (BKDA). Sri M.C. Singh has appeared on behalf of the claimants in First Appeal No. 3 of 2016. Apart from these counsels, no other counsel had appeared in any of the appeals. 6. Sri M.C. Singh has appeared on behalf of the claimants in First Appeal No. 3 of 2016. Apart from these counsels, no other counsel had appeared in any of the appeals. 6. Since all these appeals have arisen out of the same acquisition and the question of law in all the appeals are same, they have been heard together and are being decided together by this common judgment, in view of the direction of the Apex Court in the judgment and order dated 23rd March, 2021, wherein while remanding the matter back, it was directed that the appeals pending before this Court be decided together so that there is a uniformity in the order of compensation. 7. The facts in brief are that for the purpose of construction of residential and commercial buildings, BKDA proposed acquisition of land in Village Akbarpur, District Bulandshahr. The proposed scheme was named as 'Yamunapuram Avasiya Yojna, First Phase'. Under Section 4 of the Act, 1894, a notification was published on 20.12.1988 in the U.P. Gazette proposing acquisition of 61.801 acres (299116.84 sq. yd. or 98.88 Bigha) land. A declaration under Section 6 of the Act, 1894 was further published on 18.1.1989. The possession of the land was taken on 19.5.1989 and the award for the major portion of the acquired land was published by the Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) on 4.4.1991. For the land which was subject matter of litigation, a supplementary award was published by the SLAO on 10.5.2001. The Special Land Acquisition Officer had applied belting system, dividing the entire acquired land into two belts to determine compensation of Rs. 75/-per sq. yd. for the land which were located near the Highway/G.T. Road and Rs. 50/-per sq. yd. for the land which was 50 meter or more deep. In respect of other lands which he found as agricultural lands, the market value was determined @ of Rs. 88,000 per Pakka Bigha, i.e. Rs. 29.09 per sq. yds., for Jungle Auwal Abi and Rs. 56,981/-for Jungle Auwal Khaki. In the supplementary award dated 10.5.2001, SLAO had followed earlier award and determined the rate of Rs. 88,000/-per Pakka Bigha, i.e. Rs. 29.09 per sq. yd. which was determined for Jungle Auwal Abi. 8. 88,000 per Pakka Bigha, i.e. Rs. 29.09 per sq. yds., for Jungle Auwal Abi and Rs. 56,981/-for Jungle Auwal Khaki. In the supplementary award dated 10.5.2001, SLAO had followed earlier award and determined the rate of Rs. 88,000/-per Pakka Bigha, i.e. Rs. 29.09 per sq. yd. which was determined for Jungle Auwal Abi. 8. We may note, at the outset, that during the course of arguments, the counsels for the parties, i.e. the Development Authority and the claimants did not raise any dispute with regard to the location of the lands in question. There was no submission that the location of the lands subject matter of consideration in this bunch of First Appeals are different. The counsels for the claimants are pressing for award of higher amount of compensation at a uniform rate of Rs. 400/-per sq. yds. for the entire land, subject matter of all the connected appeals. 9. Sri Bhupeshwar Dayal learned Advocate for the Development Authority, at the outset, stated that the compensation at the rate of Rs. 103.50/-per sq. yd. as has been paid to the claimants in Civil Appeal No. 1060 of 2021 and Civil Appeal No. 1061 of 2021 under the interim order passed by the Apex Court therein is the maximum amount of compensation to which the claimants herein are entitled to. The said rate of compensation as has been paid to some of the claimants may be uniformally applied in case of other claimants as well, the appellants or respondents in this bunch. The submission is that the Development Authority is agreeable to uniform rate of Rs. 103.50 per sq. yd. as has been released to some of the claimants under the interim order dated 31.1.2020 passed by the Apex Court in the above noted Civil Appeals decided on 23rd March, 2021. He, however, submits that besides that the claimants are not entitled to enhancement in the market rate. The contention is that the acquisition was of a large area of undeveloped land whereas the exemplar sale deeds before the Reference Court were of very small chunk of land. The maximum rate for a small area of 167.22 sq. m. (200 sq. yd.) of the exemplar sale deed, executed on 13.4.1987 for a portion of acquired plot no. 386, was Rs. 137.54 per sq. m., paper no. 125 C2. In the said sale deed, land was sold for consideration of Rs. The maximum rate for a small area of 167.22 sq. m. (200 sq. yd.) of the exemplar sale deed, executed on 13.4.1987 for a portion of acquired plot no. 386, was Rs. 137.54 per sq. m., paper no. 125 C2. In the said sale deed, land was sold for consideration of Rs. 2000/-, i.e. at the rate of Rs. 100 per sq. yd. The Special Land Acquisition Officer while applying 25% deduction for the large area of the acquired land, had determined the market value at the rate of Rs. 75/-per sq. yd. After the said deduction, belting system was adopted depending upon the location of the land and the market value was determined in two belts as noted above. 10. It has been placed before us that the rate of Rs. 103.50 per sq. yd. was determined by the Reference Court namely the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court no. 9, Bulandshahr in L.A.R. No. 167 of 1995 and the said market value was for a piece of land abutting G.T. Road, which was acquired vide Section 4 notification issued on 30.03.1990, of a nearby village. It seems that the said award of the Reference Court had been noted by the Apex court while directing for payment of compensation at the rate of Rs. 103.50 sq. yd. to the claimants-respondents in the judgment and order dated 23rd March, 2021, while remitting the matter back for fresh consideration. It was further brought on record that the Reference Court in a number of land acquisition references, details of which is being extracted below had determined the market value based on an exemplar sale deed dated 2.7.1988. In the First Appeals filed before this Court, having noted that the exemplar sale deed was only of about 100 sq. yd. of land whereas the acquired land comprised of area approximately 3,00,000 sq. yd., had set aside the judgments of the Reference Court and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. One of such decisions dated 31.3.2004 passed in First Appeal No. 386 of 1992 (Bulandshahr Khurja Development Authority, Bulandshahr vs. Smt. Shanti Devi and others) has been placed before us which is relevant to be noted hereunder:- “Heard learned counsel for the parties. This First Appeal has been filed against the judgment of the Court below in a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. This First Appeal has been filed against the judgment of the Court below in a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. Sri Bhupeshwar Dayal, learned counsel for the appellant has stated that the land acquired was of area 3,00,000 square yard whereas the exemplar relied on is only of about 100 square yard. Hence in view of the judgment of this Court in First Appeal No. 522 of 1993, Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti vs. Khushi Ram and others decided on 26.2.2004, we set aside the impugned judgment, and remand the matter to the Court below for a fresh decision in accordance with law expeditiously. Since the matter is being remanded to the Court below certificate shall be granted under Section 13 of the Court Fee Act for the refund of the Court Fee on the memo of appeal vide Chandra Bhushan Mishra vs. Smt. Jayatri Devi, AIR 1969 Alld. 142 which has been affirmed by the Supreme Court in State of U.P. vs. Chandra Bhushan, AIR 1980 S.C. 591 .” 11. While the matter was pending before the Reference Court pursuant to the remand order dated 31.3.2004, some of the claimants had approached the Apex Court challenging the judgment and order dated 31.3.2004 passed by this Court. The Special Leave Petitions filed by them were converted into the Civil Appeals after leave was granted by the Apex Court. Vide judgment and order dated 24th April, 2006 in Civil Appeal No. 2217 of 2006 connected with Civil Appeal Nos. 2218 and 2219 of 2006, while setting aside the judgment and order dated 31.3.2004, the matter was remitted back to the High Court to take a fresh decision in accordance with law. The said order was passed on the statement of the counsel appearing for the respondent-Development Authority that the matter may be remitted to the High Court for fresh decision. Pursuant to the decision of the Apex Court, fresh consideration was made by this Court in First Appeal Nos. 102 of 2000 and 103 of 2000 which arose from the common judgment/award of the Reference Court dated 29.4.1995 in L.A.R. No. 169 of 1992 (Ajai Kumar vs. State of U.P. and others) and L.A.R. No. 168 of 1992 (Arvind Kumar vs. State of U.P. and others), wherein market rate of land acquired had been determined at the rate of Rs. 350/-per sq. yd. 12. 350/-per sq. yd. 12. The First Appellate Court vide judgment and order dated 9.9.2010 had dismissed the first appeals upholding the award dated 29.4.1995. The Development Authority filed Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No (s). 30090-30091 of 2010 against the judgment and order dated 9.9.2010 passed in the above noted appeals. By the order dated 12.11.2010 while issuing notice on the Special Leave Petition, following interim order was passed:- “Issue notice. Interim stay subject to petitioner-Authority depositing before the reference Court at the rate of Rs. 150/- per sq. yard with all statutory benefits and interest. Any amount already deposited shall be taken into account for that purpose. The amount so deposited is permitted to be withdrawn by the respondents-claimants. Counter to be filed in four weeks and rejoinder in six weeks. List thereafter.” After grant of leave, the Special Leave Petitions were converted into Civil Appeal Nos. 2124-2125 of 2012. On 20th November, 2014, both the civil appeals were dismissed for non-prosecution. Recall applications were filed by the Development Authority seeking recall of the order dated 20.11.2014 which were disposed of vide judgment and order dated 6th February, 2017 with the following observations:- “We have heard the learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. Perused the Office Report dated 2-2-2017. As per the said Office Report, there has been delay of 449 days in filing the applications for restoration. After perusing the material available on record and taking into consideration the delay in filing the applications for restoration, we are not inclined to allow the restoration of Civil Appeal Nos. 2124-2125 of 2015 which were dismissed for non-prosecution on 20.11.2014 and the applications are dismissed on the ground of delay alone. However, the question of law is kept open. We make it clear that the order passed in these matters shall not be treated as a precedent in any other matter. Pending applications filed in the matters are also disposed of.” All the interlocutory applications filed in the said appeals were also decided vide judgment and order dated 6.2.2017 in the same terms. One of the orders passed in I.A. 5-6/2017 & I.A. 7-8/2017 in Civil Appeal No(s) 2124-2125 of 2012 is extracted hereunder:- “The Interlocutory Applications are dismissed in terms of the signed order. However, the question of law is kept open. One of the orders passed in I.A. 5-6/2017 & I.A. 7-8/2017 in Civil Appeal No(s) 2124-2125 of 2012 is extracted hereunder:- “The Interlocutory Applications are dismissed in terms of the signed order. However, the question of law is kept open. We make it clear that the order passed in these matters shall not be treated as a precedent in any other matter. Pending applications filed in the matters are also disposed of.” 13. Thereafter, Land Acquisition Reference No. 573 of 1991, one of the reference remanded by this Court vide order dated 31.3.2004, was dismissed upholding the award passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. The judgment and order dated 31.5.2017 in the aforesaid reference is subject matter of challenge in First Appeal No. 533 of 2017 filed by the claimant/appellant Anand Swaroop Saxena. 14. The First Appeal No. 264 of 2012 and First Appeal No. 3 of 2016 filed by BKDA (Development Authority) were decided finally by the judgment and order dated 1.7.2019. The First Appellate Court therein had relied upon the judgment and award dated 26.11.1991 passed by the Reference Court namely IVth Additional District Judge, District Bulandshahr deciding 38 Land Acquisition References collectively namely LAR Nos. 563 to 589 of 1991 and LAR Nos. 612 to 622 of 1991 which relate to the land owners whose lands fell in the category of first and second belting for which market rate was determined by the S.L.A.O. vide award dated 4.4.1991 as Rs. 75 per sq. yd. and Rs. 50 per sq. yd. The Reference Court, however, had determined the market value @ Rs. 400 per sq. yd. The above noted First Appeal No. 264 of 2012 arose out of the judgment and award dated 10.5.2010 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No. 9, Bulandshahr adjudicating the Land Acquisition Reference No. 184 of 2001 (Smt. Amir Kuwar vs. State of U.P. and others) determining market value of the acquired land for the purpose of payment of compensation at the rate of Rs. 8,50,000 per Pakka Bigha (Rs. 281/-per sq. yd.). The First Appeal No. 3 of 2016 arose from the judgment and award dated 24.9.2015 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 2, Bulandshahr in L.A.R. No. 1 of 2006 determining market value for the payment of compensation at the rate of Rs. 8,50,000 per Pakka Bigha (Rs. 281 per sq. yd.). 281/-per sq. yd.). The First Appeal No. 3 of 2016 arose from the judgment and award dated 24.9.2015 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 2, Bulandshahr in L.A.R. No. 1 of 2006 determining market value for the payment of compensation at the rate of Rs. 8,50,000 per Pakka Bigha (Rs. 281 per sq. yd.). The award dated 24.9.2015 in L.A.R. No. 1 of 2006 had been delivered following the earlier award dated 10.5.2010 passed in L.A.R. No. 184 of 2001, subject matter of challenge in First Appeal No. 264 of 2012. Whereas in L.A.R. No. 184 of 2001, the Reference Court had relied upon the awards dated 29.4.1995 passed by the District Judge, Bulandshahr in L.A.R. Nos. 168 of 1992 (Arvind Kumar vs. State of U.P. and others) and 169 of 1992 (Ajai Kumar vs. State of U.P. and others) whereby market rate of the land acquired had been determined at the rate of Rs. 350/-per sq. yd. 15. As noted above, the judgment and award dated 29.4.1995 passed by the Reference Court in LAR Nos. 168 of 1992 and 169 of 1992 was subject matter of challenge in First Appeal Nos. 102 of 2000 and 103 of 2000 which were initially dismissed for want of prosecution on 7.4.2010. This Court while dismissing the First Appeal No. 264 of 2012 and First Appeal No. 3 of 2016 vide judgment and order dated 1.7.2019 had observed as follows:- “108. Thereafter, Court below refers to market value already determined in respect of acquisition, subject matter of adjudication before Court earlier. Paper No. 30 (c)/1 is copy of judgement and award dated 26.11.1991, passed by Sri Vijay Singh, IV Additional District Judge, District, Bulandshahr deciding 38 LARs, collectively i.e. LAR Nos. 563 to 589 of 1991; 612 to 622 of 1991 which relate to land owners whose land fell in the category of first and second belting for which market rate was determined by SLAO vide award dated 4.4.1991, as Rs. 75 per sq-yard and Rs. 50 per sq-yard. The Reference Court therein determined market value at Rs. 400/- per sq-yard. Another award on record is Paper No. 31 (c)/1 dated 27.10.1995, passed by Sri V.K. Jain, District Judge, Bulandshahr in L.AR. Nos. 75 per sq-yard and Rs. 50 per sq-yard. The Reference Court therein determined market value at Rs. 400/- per sq-yard. Another award on record is Paper No. 31 (c)/1 dated 27.10.1995, passed by Sri V.K. Jain, District Judge, Bulandshahr in L.AR. Nos. 266 and 267 of 1992 but it was in respect of different acquisition proceedings, whereby land of Village Chandpur, Pargana Baran, District Bulandshahr was acquired for construction of Delhi Kanpur Road by U.P. Public Works Department. Notification therein under Section 4, was published on 11.3.1989 and declaration was made on 3.10.1989, possession was taken on 6.9.1990 and SLAO gave an award on 13.12.1991. Reference Court determined market value in that case at Rs. 390/- per sq-yard. 109. Reference Court instead of relying upon aforesaid awards, has placed reliance on the awards rendered in LARs No. 168 of 1992, 169 of 1992 and 195 of 1992 and 67 of 1992, wherein, Reference Court had determined two rates i.e. Rs. 400/-per sq-yard and 350/-per sq-yard. In LAR No. 195 of 1992, land owner whose land was acquired had purchased about 68 sq-yard of land for residential purposes and therefore, compensation for him was determined at Rs. 400/-per sq-yard while in respect of other land owners, it was determined at Rs. 350/-per sq-yard. Award in aforesaid LARs was challenged by BKDA in First Appeals No. 102 of 2000 and 103 of 2000, which were dismissed on 7.4.2010. Counsel for BKDA also admitted before Reference Court during the course of argument that land owners were already paid compensation at the rate of Rs. 300/-per sq-yard. This part of statement mentioned in award is reproduced as under: ^^cgl ds nkSjku Ákf/kdj.k ds fo}ku vf/koDrk us ;g Lohdkj fd;k gS fd vadu rhu lkS #i; Áfr oxZ xt dh nj ls Hkqxrku Hkh dk'rokjksa dks fd;k x;k gSA** “Learned counsel for the Authority, during the arguments, admitted that even payment has been made to the Kashkaars (cultivators) at the rate of three hundred rupees per square yard.” (English translation by Court)” 16. Upon challenge made before the Apex Court, as noted above, vide judgment and order dated 23rd March, 2021, the order of the First Appellate Court dated 1.7.2019 had been set aside observing that after dismissal of the Civil Appeal Nos. 2124-2125 of 2012 arising out of First Appeal Nos. Upon challenge made before the Apex Court, as noted above, vide judgment and order dated 23rd March, 2021, the order of the First Appellate Court dated 1.7.2019 had been set aside observing that after dismissal of the Civil Appeal Nos. 2124-2125 of 2012 arising out of First Appeal Nos. 102 of 2000 and 103 of 2000, by the Apex Court vide judgment and order dated 6.2.2017, the High Court had committed error in relying upon the order dated 7.4.2010 of dismissal of First Appeal Nos. 102 of 2000 and 103 of 2000. It may be noted that the First Appeal Nos. 102 of 2000 and 103 of 2000 were initially dismissed for want of prosecution vide judgment and order dated 7.4.2010. However, further on the restoration applications filed by appellants therein, they were restored and decided finally vide order dated 9.9.2010. The Apex Court had, thus, taken exception to the reliance placed by this Court upon the order of dismissal of First Appeal Nos. 102 of 2000 and 103 of 2000 for the reason that the question of law raised therein was kept open and it was held that the order of dismissal of Civil Appeal Nos. 2124-2125 of 2012 shall not be treated as a precedent in any other matter. After remittal of the matter vide order dated 23rd March, 2021, the First Appeal Nos. 264 of 2012 and 3 of 2016 are listed before us in this bunch. Further in view of the direction of the Apex Court, all other pending appeals arising out of the acquisition proceedings subject matter of consideration in the aforesaid two appeals are also tagged in this bunch. 17. Having noticed the above, we found that a vicious circle was created by the Reference Court and the First Appellate Court in subsequent references and appeals by placing reliance on the previous decisions validity of which were questioned by the higher Courts on the challenge made by the Development Authority. After it was categorically held by the Apex Court in the judgment and order dated 6.2.2017 that the issue decided in First Appeal Nos. 102 of 2000 and 103 of 2000 was not to be treated as precedent in any other matter, it was not open for the First Appellate Court to place reliance on the said decisions. After it was categorically held by the Apex Court in the judgment and order dated 6.2.2017 that the issue decided in First Appeal Nos. 102 of 2000 and 103 of 2000 was not to be treated as precedent in any other matter, it was not open for the First Appellate Court to place reliance on the said decisions. From a perusal of the order passed by the Reference Court dated 10.5.2010 in LAR No. 184 of 2001, it is evident that reliance was placed on the previous judgment of the Reference Court dated 29.4.1995. None of the references or the appeals filed before this Court, subject matter of dispute in this bunch, were decided on their merits determining the market value of the lands in question considering their location and the belt in which they fall. 18. Placing the above material before us, it is argued by the learned counsel for the Development Authority that when a vast track of land of approximately 3,00,000 sq. yd was acquired by the State Government, it was not open for the Reference Court to place reliance on an exemplar sale deed dated 2.7.1988 which was executed for a small portion of barely 100 sq. yds of Gata No. 386, which was subject matter of acquisition. It is argued that even after remittal, the rate of Rs. 400/-sq. yd. at which the land in the sale deed dated 2.7.1988 was sold, had been applied to determine the market value of the acquired land. 19. Learned counsel for the claimants-appellants, however, relied on the said sale deed itself, i.e. exemplar sale deed dated 2.7.1988 whereby an area of 100 sq. yd. of Plot No. 386 was sold at the rate of Rs. 420/-per sq. yd. Apart from the said exemplar, no other material has been placed before us to substantiate that the appellants are entitled for compensation at the rate determined by the Reference Court. 20. None of the learned Advocates for the claimants could prove before us the rate of Rs. 400 sq. yd. for the acquired land considering its location and the market value applicable on 20.12.1988, the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act, 1894. Apart from the sale deed dated 2.7.1988, which was relied by the Reference Courts in a series of decisions for determination of compensation at the rate of Rs. 400 per sq. 400 sq. yd. for the acquired land considering its location and the market value applicable on 20.12.1988, the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act, 1894. Apart from the sale deed dated 2.7.1988, which was relied by the Reference Courts in a series of decisions for determination of compensation at the rate of Rs. 400 per sq. yd., nothing could be brought before us so as to ascertain just compensation for the acquired land. The determination of compensation at the rate of Rs. 400 per sq. yd., therefore, is not permissible. All other exemplar sale deeds on the record, noticed in the chart prepared in the judgment and order dated 1.7.2019, indicate that the maximum rate of Rs. 137.54 per sq. m. could be fetched for the sale of Plot No. 386 for an area of 167.22 sq. m. in a sale deed dated 13.4.1987. Applying the principle of determination of market value, i.e. the consent of notional sale by individual vendor to prospective vendee, it seems just and proper that the compensation at the rate of Rs. 103.50 per sq. yd. as agreed by the Development Authority (BKDA) be determined for the lands, subject matter of acquisition in the present bunch of First Appeals. The claimants who are appellants or respondents in the present bunch of appeals filed by the claimants and the Development Authority are found entitled to compensation at the market rate of Rs. 103.50 per sq. yds. as has been released to the claimants-respondents in First Appeal No. 264 of 2012 and First Appeal No. 3 of 2016 pursuant to the decision of the Apex Court dated 23rd March, 2021 in Civil Appeal Nos. 1060 and 1061 of 2021. Besides that they are also entitled to 30% solatium on the compensation determined at the above rate with interest as also 12% additional compensation from the date of notification till the date of compensation of the acquired land. From the date of possession for a period of one year, the claimants/land holders shall be entitled to interest at a rate of 9% per annum and after one year till the date of payment they shall be entitled to 15% interest per annum. The payments already made to the claimants/land holders under the interim orders passed by this Court or the Apex Court in the Appeals shall be adjusted against the amount payable to them. The payments already made to the claimants/land holders under the interim orders passed by this Court or the Apex Court in the Appeals shall be adjusted against the amount payable to them. Any excess payment made to any of the claimants/land holders shall have to be recovered as arrears of land revenue. 21. The reliance placed by Sri Neeraj Agarwal learned Advocate for the respondent-claimant/land holder in First Appeal No. 155 of 2001 on the decision of the Apex Court in Stanes Higher Secondary School Vs. Special Tehsildar (Land Acquisition) Coimbatore, Tamilnadu reported in A.I.R. 2010 SC 1323 to assert that the compensation already paid to the claimants/land holders may not be recovered, is not found applicable in the facts of the present case, inasmuch as, payments herein had been made under the interim orders passed by this Court or the Apex Court which were subject to the final decision of the pending appeals. 22. In view of the above discussion, all the appeals filed by the Development Authority (BKDA) as also the appeals filed by the claimants/land holders are disposed of setting aside the judgment and order passed by the Reference Courts, with the determination of the market value of the lands subject matter of acquisition in the above terms. The appeals are, accordingly, disposed of.