JUDGMENT : These six appeals are filed by the appellant-South Western Railway challenging the judgment and award passed in RA.No.151/2019 dated 18.03.2020 by VI Additional District Judge, Tumakuru and RA.Nos.156/2019, 165/2019, 166/2019, 42/2018 and 153/2019 dated 20.02.2020, 22.11.2019, 22.11.2019, 08.07.2019, and 22.11.2019 respectively by II Additional District Judge, Tumakuru (hereinafter referred to as the 'First Appellate Court' for short) and the judgment and award passed in LAC Nos.160/2011, 191/2011, 157/2011, 158/2011, 34/2009 and 163/2011 dated 27.04.2017, 29.08.2017, 14.12.2017, 14.12.2017, 09.10.2013 and 13.09.2017 respectively, by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Kunigal, (hereinafter referred to as the 'reference Court' for short). 2. Both the reference Court and the First Appellate Court have opined that fixing compensation at Rs.250/-per sq.ft., is correct. Challenging the judgments of these two Courts, the appellant-South Western Railway has preferred these six appeals with a prayer to fix compensation at Rs.200 per sq. ft. contending that the Division Bench and Coordinate Bench of this Court have fixed the compensation of Rs.200/-per sq.ft. 3. Brief facts of the cases in common are: Respondent No.1 in all the appeals, are the owners of their respective sites measuring 1200 sq.ft. to 2400 sq.ft. and the said sites are assigned municipal members by the Town Municipal Council of Mallaghatta Village, Kasaba Hobli, Kunigal Town. The aforesaid sites along with other lands/sites were acquired for formation of Bengaluru-Hassan upgradation of railway lane. Respondent No.2, in all the appeals, who is the Special Land Acquisition Officer ('SLAO' for short) and Competent Authority for acquiring the land, has initiated acquisition proceedings. Therefore, preliminary notification was issued on 18.01.2007 and final notification was issued on 01.11.2007. Respondent No.2-SLAO has passed an award fixing compensation of Rs.50/-per sq. ft. along with solatium and other statutory benefits. Being aggrieved by the same, respondent No.1, the owners of their respective lands/sites, in all the appeals, sought a reference before the reference Court. 4. The reference Court, after appreciating the evidence on record in this regard led by both parties, has enhanced compensation from Rs.50/-to Rs.250/-per sq.ft. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant-South Western Railway has preferred the above said regular appeals before the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court, after considering the evidence on record and appreciating the same has confirmed the order passed by the reference Court granting compensation of Rs.250/-per sq. ft. 5. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant-South Western Railway has preferred the above said regular appeals before the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court, after considering the evidence on record and appreciating the same has confirmed the order passed by the reference Court granting compensation of Rs.250/-per sq. ft. 5. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant-South Western Railway has preferred the instant second appeals before this Court by contending that the Division Bench and other Coordinate Bench of this Court have fixed compensation of Rs.200/-per sq. ft. by reducing compensation from Rs.250/-per sq.ft. to Rs.200/-per sq. ft. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant-South Western Railway has submitted that the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Venkataramanaiah Vs. the Special Land Acquisition Officer in MFA.No.2207/2016 decided on 28.09.2021 (Venkataramanaiah Case) has fixed compensation of Rs.200/-per sq. ft. in respect of the very same preliminary and final notifications and for the very same project. Therefore, by placing reliance on the following judgments of the Division Bench and Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, he prays to allow the appeals: 1. MFA.No.2207/2016 dated 28.09.2021. (Venkataramanaiah Vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer & Others) 2. MSA.No.86/2020 dated 15.09.2023. (Mrs. Deivanai Vs. Mrs.Nagamma & another) 3. MSA.No.113/2021 dated 14.09.2023. (The Deputy Chief Engineer Vs. Srilenkaiah and another) 4. MSA.No.44/2020 dated 14.09.2023. (The Deputy Chief Engineer Vs. Narayana & another) 5. MSA.No.128/2021 dated 14.09.2023. (The Deputy Chief Engineer Vs. Smt. Krishnaveni & another) 6. MFA.No.2126/2017 C/w MSA.No.127/2021 dated 05.06.2023. (Nanjamma Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer & Others) 7. It is further submitted that in respect of the very same notification and the very same project some of the land owners have agreed to receive compensation of Rs.200/-per sq. ft. Therefore, respondent No.1 herein cannot be made standing in a different position and in order to avoid disparity, he prays to fix compensation of Rs.200/-per sq. ft. It is further submitted that the above said judgments are binding on this Court and therefore, he prays to fix compensation at Rs.200/-per sq. ft. and allow the appeals. 8. ft. Therefore, respondent No.1 herein cannot be made standing in a different position and in order to avoid disparity, he prays to fix compensation of Rs.200/-per sq. ft. It is further submitted that the above said judgments are binding on this Court and therefore, he prays to fix compensation at Rs.200/-per sq. ft. and allow the appeals. 8. On the other hand, leaned counsel for respondent No.1, the owners, in all the appeals, who have lost their lands submitted that the Division Bench and Coordinate Bench of this Court have not discussed the evidence on record and based on the consent submissions made by the parties in those appeals, simply this Court has fixed compensation at Rs.200/-per sq. ft. Firstly, the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Venkataramanaiah (supra), was passed based on the submissions made by the parties in the said appeal but not by appreciating evidence on record. Hence, there is no law laid down in the above said appeal and simply following the judgment of Division Bench of this Court, the other Coordinate Benches of this Court have fixed compensation of Rs.200/-per sq. ft. Therefore, the decisions in the above said cases are binding only on the parties therein but not on respondent No.1 herein as the judgments rendered as stated above are judgments in personam. Therefore, it is submitted the sale deeds at Ex.P10 and Ex.P11 (Exhibits number may vary in connected matters) produced by respondent No.1-the claimant, the land owners before the reference Court clearly prove that prior to preliminary notification, the other land owners have sold out their sites in other adjacent area in Kunigal Town, for sale consideration of Rs.237.50 per sq. ft. Therefore, based on these evidence, the reference Court and First Appellate Court have fixed compensation at Rs.250/-per sq. ft. Therefore, learned counsel submitted that based on the evidence on record produced in these cases, the compensation has been fixed, but not by the consent of the parties in other cases. Therefore, he prays to dismiss the appeals filed by the appellant-South Western Railway. 9. The factual matrix involved in these appeals is not disputed. The preliminary notification was issued on 18.01.2007 and the final notification was issued on 01.11.2007. The notifications, in the above referred decisions, are the same as in the present cases. Therefore, he prays to dismiss the appeals filed by the appellant-South Western Railway. 9. The factual matrix involved in these appeals is not disputed. The preliminary notification was issued on 18.01.2007 and the final notification was issued on 01.11.2007. The notifications, in the above referred decisions, are the same as in the present cases. The purpose of acquisition of lands for the project of Bengaluru-Hassan is also the same in the above referred decisions and in the instant appeals. In the aforementioned decisions, the reference Court fixed the market value at Rs.250/-per sq. ft., whereas in the present instant appeals, the reference Court has fixed market value at Rs.250 per sq. ft. Therefore, there is no factual difference between the instant appeals and the above referred decisions. 10. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant and respondent No.1, the question that arises for consideration before this Court is that: "Whether, under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, the judgments of Division Bench and Co-Ordinate benches of this Court (stated supra) are applicable in these appeals, when the judgment delivered therein are of consent of submissions of both parties but, when appreciating evidence on record, the judgment in personam are applicable in these appeals?" 11. Learned counsel for the appellant by referring to the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Venkataramanaiah (Supra) submitted that the Division Bench of this Court has fixed market value at Rs.200/-per sq. ft. and other Co-ordinate Benches (supra) have also fixed the same market value by following the judgment in the case of Venkataramanaiah (Supra). Hence, prays to fix market value at Rs.200/-per sq. ft. 12. On perusing the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Venkataramanaiah (Supra), it is seen that solely based on submissions made by the learned counsel for the claimant (land owner) the Division Bench has fixed the market value at Rs.200/-per sq. ft. In the said case, the claimant, who has lost the land has agreed to receive compensation of Rs.200/-per sq. ft., which is consented by the appellant-South Western Railway. Accordingly, the Division Bench has fixed market value at Rs.200/-per sq. ft. and awarded the same, which is followed in other judgments also. The above said judgment has been passed with the consent of the claimant therein. ft., which is consented by the appellant-South Western Railway. Accordingly, the Division Bench has fixed market value at Rs.200/-per sq. ft. and awarded the same, which is followed in other judgments also. The above said judgment has been passed with the consent of the claimant therein. Therefore, there is no occasion to appreciate evidence on record by the Division Bench and Co-Ordinate Benches. 13. Before the Division Bench of this Court, in the case of Venkataramanaiah (supra), there was no opportunity to consider and appreciate evidence on record, since, the claimants have submitted that they have agreed to receive compensation of Rs.200/-per sq. ft. which is consented by appellant-South Western Railway. 14. Therefore, in the case of Venkataramanaiah (supra) is judgment in Personam. Final adjudication in suit or trial or appeal means the statement of opinion given by the judge on the ground of decree or order are of two types, one is Judgment in Rem and another one is Judgment in Personam. The difference between the Judgment in Rem and Judgment in Personam are as follows: Judgment in Rem Judgment in Personam These are the judgments which directly or indirectly affect the legal status of any object or a thing. These are the judgments which do not affect the legal status but only determine the rights of the parties. •It means a judgment which is conclusive against everyone. •It means a judgment which is conclusive only against the parties to the suit. I. Judgment in Rem:-When a judgment is given on a particular subject matter, it will not only remain between the two parties but also be applicable to the entire world. II. Judgment in Personam:-When a judgment is given on a subject matter, it will remain between the parties. It means the judgment will be against an individual. 15. Basic theory of law is that judgments are pronounced on the basis of facts and evidence, in some case the judgments are pronounced on the basis of accepted submissions of both parties. The judgment depends upon the facts of the case of particular parties and evidence tendered in the said case and not by reference of the judgment of other case. Each and every case has its own importance and based upon the subject matter and evidence tendered therein. 16. The judgment depends upon the facts of the case of particular parties and evidence tendered in the said case and not by reference of the judgment of other case. Each and every case has its own importance and based upon the subject matter and evidence tendered therein. 16. The judgment in Rem signified as judgments which are good against all mankind and judgments in Personam signified the judgments which are good only against the individuals who are parties to them and their privies. The point adjudicated upon in a judgment in rem is always as to the status of the res and is conclusive against the world as to that status, whereas, in a Judgment in Personam, the point whatever it may be, which is adjudicated upon not being as to the status of the res is conclusive only between the parties or privies. 17. The applicability of the ratio in given judgment if applicable to another case, where the latter case involved similar set of facts and principles of law is considered and decided on the evidence produced before the case. If there is any observation or remark in judgment, which may be ancillary but not on the crux of the facts in issue and cannot have binding effect and not applicable, though facts are similar but if there is no opportunity for considering the evidence. Therefore, when we follow the law of precedent where a judgment can be said to be having binding effect on the case that the former one conclusively decided and laid down the law upon the application of law on the given set of facts and circumstances. But, where a judgment is rendered by consent submissions made by both the parties that is not applicable, though, having binding effect on the Court. Therefore, the judgments rendered in the case of Venkataramanaiah (supra), and in other decisions of Co Ordinate Bench of this Court are Judgment in Personam, that means applicable to parties therein but not to other parties in other cases. What is Ratio Decidendi? Ratio decidendi refers to the legal reasoning or principle upon which a court’s decision is based and which forms the binding precedent for future cases. It is an essential part of a judicial decision that is necessary to resolve the dispute at hand. What is Ratio Decidendi? Ratio decidendi refers to the legal reasoning or principle upon which a court’s decision is based and which forms the binding precedent for future cases. It is an essential part of a judicial decision that is necessary to resolve the dispute at hand. It comprises legal reasoning given for the decision and forms an analytical legal principle that must be followed in future cases with similar facts. Ratio Decidendi In ordinary sense, we refer to as ration the reason behind the decision but actually, it is much more than that. The reason in this regard is not merely applying the law to the facts and coming up with an order. Ratio instead refers to the steps that are involved to resolve a dispute, this resolution must be directly related to the issue or issues that are at the core of the dispute at hand. It must come from disputes of law, not disputes of fact. Ration Decidendi must be argued in court and the facts of the precedent case shape the level of generality to which the later courts decide the level of generality. What is Obiter Dicta? On the other hand: Obiter dicta or obiter dictum are statements made by a judge that are usually philosophical interpretations by judges and are not the actual legal citing required to be included and used as a precedent. These statements are not essential to the decision reached in the case. They are passing remarks, comments, or observations made by the judge on some legal issues that do not directly affect the case outcome. Obiter dicta do not form a binding precedent and are not legally binding on future cases. They are opinions expressed by the judge that may be persuasive but are not necessary to the decision reached in the case. Obiter Dicta Obiter is the term used for remarks made by the judge which are not binding on the parties to the case. Statements that are not crucial and refer to hypothetical facts or issues of law not related to the case also form a part of obiter dicta in a judgment. Unlike ratio, obiter is not the subject of the judicial decision even if the statements made in this part are correct according to law. Statements that are not crucial and refer to hypothetical facts or issues of law not related to the case also form a part of obiter dicta in a judgment. Unlike ratio, obiter is not the subject of the judicial decision even if the statements made in this part are correct according to law. Precedent A decision of the higher courts like the Supreme Court and the High Courts generally sets a precedent for the Courts that are directly below them in terms of jurisdiction. Ratio, because it sets an underlying principle in the judgment, forms a vital part in a judicial precedent. Judicial precedents form one of the most noteworthy sources of law as they are often quoted and followed by the lawyers and judges during the course of arguing cases. The precedents however differ in value depending on not only the hierarchy and strength of the bench but also depending on the reverence that a judge who pronounces the judgment possesses in the legal fraternity. The doctrine of precedent finds itself embedded in the Constitution of India by virtue of Article 141 which states that the law declared by the Supreme Court is binding on all the subordinate courts. It does not matter as to what the facts and circumstances of a particular case are; the lower courts are not permitted to overrule the law that has been declared by the Supreme Court. Trouble emerges in that, in spite of the fact that the judge will five reasons behind his judgment, he won’t generally say what the ration decidendi is, and it is then; up to a later judge to “elicit” the ration of the case. There may, in any case, be contradiction over what the ratio is and there might be in excess of one ratio. 18. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs Sun Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd. reported in AIR 1992 (4) SCC 363 has held as follows: “The ratio decidendi of a case must be distinguished from the obiter dicta by considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the context in which the statement was made.” 19. Under these circumstances, the instant appeals are standing on different footing for consideration of the grievances of the claimants, the land losers. Under these circumstances, the instant appeals are standing on different footing for consideration of the grievances of the claimants, the land losers. Merely because, the owner, who consents for receiving of lesser compensation in some other case, the claimants/land losers herein cannot be compelled to give consent to accept the same compensation. In the above referred decisions, the owner might have consented to lesser compensation or he might have been satisfied with the said award, but the same cannot be applied to the other land owners, though the claimants who are also similarly situated on the same pedestal. In the instant appeals, the lis is for deciding the rights between the claimants, who have lost their lands at one side and the appellant-South Western Railway, who is beneficiary on the other side. Therefore, in these appeals, the appropriate market value needs to be determined on the evidence produced before the reference Court. There may be several judgments of this Court on the same set of facts and circumstances, but consideration of the same are of on two aspects i.e., one is based on consent of parties and other one is based on appreciation of evidence. If one party has consented for receiving lesser compensation and may obtain orders from this Court that cannot be made binding on other party to accept the same merely because he is standing on the same platform. Therefore, under these principles of law, the above said judgments are not applicable to the present appeals though binding on this Court. Therefore, the instant appeals are considered on merits upon appreciating evidence on record. 20. Before the reference Court, respondent No.1-owner in all the appeals, who have lost their lands for the purpose of project have produced the sale deeds dated 21.04.2007 (prior to final notification) and 23.03.2006 (prior to preliminary notification). These sale deeds are registered in respect of land/site of dimension 30 x 40 feet situated at Wanambadi Colony (ward No.12) at Kunigal Town selling the site for Rs.2,85,000/-which comes to Rs.237.50/-per sq.ft. In the present appeals, the sites are situated at Mallaghatta Village (ward No.2) at Kunigal Town. Both these Wanambadi and Mallaghatta area are within the Kunigal Town at the distance of 1.5 kilometer from the Kunigal Taluka Court Complex and Kunigal Bus Stand. In the present appeals, the sites are situated at Mallaghatta Village (ward No.2) at Kunigal Town. Both these Wanambadi and Mallaghatta area are within the Kunigal Town at the distance of 1.5 kilometer from the Kunigal Taluka Court Complex and Kunigal Bus Stand. When the sites, in these two areas are situated at Kunigal Town and the sites at Wanambadi Colony are sold out for Rs.237.50/-per sq.ft., the residents of Mallaghatta Village are also entitled for the same market value. The reference Court after considering the aforementioned sale deeds has fixed market value at Rs.250/-per sq.ft. Therefore, the reference Court has rightly fixed the market value based on the evidence produced before it. 21. The First Appellate Court has re-appreciated the evidence on record and come to the conclusion that compensation of Rs.250/-per sq. ft. fixed by the reference Court is correct and is based on well reasoning. When upon re-appreciating the evidence on record in this regard, both the reference Court and the First Appellate Court have rightly come to conclusion that respondent No.1-the claimants in all the appeals, are entitled for compensation of Rs.250/-per sq ft. 22. In view of the above, I do not find any reasons to interfere with the orders passed by the reference Court and the First Appellate Court. In this regard, when the instant appeals are considered on merits and on appreciation of evidence on record as discussed above, the decisions relied on by the appellant-South Western Railway, are only on the basis of the consent of the claimants therein. Therefore, the said decisions are not applicable in the instant appeals though binding on this Court. Claimants-respondent No.1 herein requested the Court to consider the case upon appreciating evidence on record. Therefore, there is no question of parity between the claimants herein who have lost their lands/sites and other land losers. The other land losers have consented for lesser compensation. Therefore, the orders came to be passed in other cases by fixing compensation at Rs.200/-per sq. ft. Therefore, consent of one party receiving a lesser compensation cannot be made binding on the party though stands on the same footage because the rights have to be adjudicated on appreciation of evidence on record. Therefore, the orders came to be passed in other cases by fixing compensation at Rs.200/-per sq. ft. Therefore, consent of one party receiving a lesser compensation cannot be made binding on the party though stands on the same footage because the rights have to be adjudicated on appreciation of evidence on record. Therefore, on the aforesaid reasons, the Miscellaneous Second appeals are liable to be dismissed as the reference Court and the First appellate Court have correctly held that respondent No.1-claimants, in all the appeals are entitled for compensation of Rs.250/-per sq.ft. Accordingly, I answer the point raised in the negative. Therefore, the orders passed by both the trial Court and First Appellate Court are liable to be confirmed. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: :ORDER: i. The Miscellaneous Second Appeals are dismissed. ii. The judgment and award passed in RA.No.151/2019 dated 18.03.2020 by the VI Additional District Judge, Tumakuru and RA.Nos.156/2019, 165/2019, 166/2019, 42/2018 and 153/2019 dated 20.02.2020, 22.11.2019, 22.11.2019, 08.07.2019, and 22.11.2019 by the II Additional District Judge, Tumakuru, are confirmed and the judgment and award passed in LAC Nos.160/2011, 191/2011, 157/2011, 158/2011, 34/2009 and 163/2011 dated 27.04.2017, 29.08.2017, 14.12.2017, 14.12.2017, 09.10.2013 and 13.09.2017 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Kunigal, are confirmed. iii. No order as to costs.