Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Madan Mohan, Sri Pankaj Agrawal and Sri Anil Mehrotra, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Ramesh Upadhyay assisted by Sri Amit Manohar, learned counsel for the respondent - NOIDA and learned standing counsel for the Staterespondents. Facts:-
(2.) All these first appeals have been filed by the claimants for enhancement of compensation. The lands belonging to the claimants situated in village Gijore, Pargana and Tehsil Dadri, District Gutam Buddh Nagar ( the then District Ghaziabad), which was acquired for NOIDA for planned industrial development by a notification under section 4 read with section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 issued on 20.2.1990 followed by corrigendum published on 26.07.1990. Declaration under Section 6 read with Section 17 of the Act, was published on 12.06.1990 followed by corrigendum dated 14.09.1990. Special Land Acquisition Officer determined the market value of land for payment of compensation @ Rs.50/- per square yard by award dated 30.07.1992. At the instance of claimants, various references were made.
(3.) By the impugned judgment, the reference court awarded compensation @ Rs.126/- per square yard along with other benefits under the Act. Similar awards were made by reference court in various other references. Aggrieved with the judgment of the reference court, the claimants as well as NOIDA filed various first appeals before this Court. Several appeals filed by the claimants as well as by NOIDA, were clubbed together and were decided by the Division Bench in leading First Appeal No.702 of 2001, NOIDA v. Bahadur and others by judgment dated 05.11.2014 . Appeals of the claimants were allowed and the appeals filed by NOIDA were dismissed by the Division Bench as under: "From an overall analysis of the evidence and material on record, we find that the claimants' contention for due fixation and enhancement of compensation based on various decision of the reference court as well as that of this Court in appeals is well founded and convincing. The Division Bench judgment of this Court referred to above in respect of the land situate in adjoining and nearby villages being similar in nature as well as having the same potentiality cannot be ignored. Further due to proximity in time between acquisition of the land in the case in hand and the land acquired which has been subject matter of the Division Bench judgment of this Court, the compensation awarded by the Division Bench have a binding precedent and not liable to be overlooked or ignored. In view of above facts and discussions, we find no illegality in the finding of the reference court determining the market value of land @ Rs.252/- per sq. yard and the impugned judgment with respect to the same does not require any interference. However, 50% deduction from the awarded amount cannot be held to be justified and the judgment and award of the reference court to that extent cannot be sustained. However, since the claimant-appellants have only claimed compensation @ Rs.176/- per sq. yard and paid court fees accordingly, First Appeal Nos. 784 of 2003, 993 of 2003, 1052 of 2004, 1160 of 2004, 1161 of 2004, 1162 of 2004, 1163 of 2004, 1164 of 2004, 1168 of 2004, 763 of 2008, 748 of 2008, 764 of 2008, 762 of 2008, 740 of 2008, 1165 of 2004, 1015 of 2000 and 782 of 2008 are allowed to the above extent and the appellants are held to be entitled for payment of compensation @ Rs.176/- per sq. yard along with all other statutory benefits such as interest, additional interest, solatium etc. as provided under provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. First Appeal Nos. 702 of 2001, 667 of 2001, 635 of 2001, 643 of 2001, 655 of 2001, 710 of 2001, 634 of 2001, 946 of 2001, 704 of 2001, 675 of 2001, 631 of 2001, 637 of 2001, 697 of 2001, 831 of 2002, 676 of 2001, 668 of 2001, 629 of 2001, 654 of 2001, 698 of 2001, 670 of 2001, 669 of 2001, 674 of 2001, 706 of 2001, 671 of 2001, 700 of 2001, 832 of 2002, 708 of 2001, 673 of 2001, 672 of 2001, 633 of 2001, 636 of 2001, 833 of 2002, 639 of 2001 and 324 of 2002 filed by NOIDA accordingly stand dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances, we do not make any order as to costs." (Emphasis supplied) Submissions:- ;