AMITAVA LALA, J. - (1.) SINCE all the aforesaid first appeals are con­nected and have been heard analogously, the same are being decided by this common judgment and order having binding effect upon all the first appeals.
(2.) THE aforesaid bunch of first appeals are arising out of an award dated 15th January, 2001 passed by the District Judge, Ghaziabad in the appropriate land acquisition reference's. The lands under acquisition fall in Village Chhalera Bangar, Pargana and Tehsil Dadri, District Ghaziabad. Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called as the 'Act') was issued on 5th January, 1991, which was duly published in the Gazette on 2nd February, 1991 proposing to acquire land measuring area 790-16-9 bighas corresponding to 492.26 acres. Publication in the local newspapers was done on 24th March, 1991. Last corrigendum was issued on 4th April, 1991. Declaration under Section 6 read with Section 17 of the Act was made on 7th January, 1992 by publication in the Ga­zette. Possession was taken in parts on 30ttJ March, 1992, 7th August, 1995 and 18th November, 1995. Special Land Acquisition Officer (hereinafter called as the 'S.L.A.O.') made his offer by way of award only in respect of an area of 747-5-1 bighas, comparable to 467.03 acres. The market value was determined at the rate of Rs. 1251- per square yard. Compensation was awarded at the rate of Rs. 110/- per square yards after making deduction of 12% on account of largeness of area. Court of reference under Section 18 of the Act enhanced the market value upto Rs. 297/- per square yard and awarded compensation of Rs. 222/- per square yard after making deduction of 25% on account of largeness of area. These facts are undisputed. According to Mr. A.K. Misra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the claimants, the aforesaid cases are similarly placed with that of First Appeal No. 744 of 2001 (Jagdish Chandra and others v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, NOIDA and another) alongwith the connected appeals arising out of the same .village, in which a Division Bench of this Court was pleased to deliver a judgment reported in 2008(1) ADJ 253. The only difference is period of notifica­tion. In such cases i.e. Jagdish Chandra (supra) the notification under Section-4 (1) of the Act was of the year 1989, whereas in the present cases the notifications are of the year 1991. Therefore, at least similar compensation is to be awarded in these cases too. On the other hand, Mr. Navin Sinha, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the authority contended that there is a difference between the case of Jagdish Chandra (supra) and these cases. In these cases, the Court of refer­ence has relied upon agreement for sale of the year 1989 followed by the sale-deed without any reference or recital with regard to such agreement for sale in respect of lands comparably smaller in size, which cannot be held to be the exemplar sale-deed. Secondly, in those cases deduction was not made by the Court from the payable compensation because the authority needed to develop a Regional Park on such land unlike the lands of the present cases where it is required for commercial purpose. Mr. Misra, in reply thereto, contended before this Court that the lands acquired by the authority are not large in area. On the contrary, various small plots are acquired by separate notifications and accumu­lated to show largeness only to differentiate from the comparable lands. He has produced a chart to establish that in only appeal i.e. First Appeal No. 34 of 2007 (Ganeshi and others v. NOIDA and another) the acquired land is 29.15 bigha approximately. There are different plots in the appeals where the acquired lands are even less than a bigha. However, from the said chart we find that the land area in First Appeal No. 386 of 2001 (Nandu and others v. Noida) is 31 bigha kachcha (10.33 bigha pakka) and in First Appeal No. 394 of 2001 (Kishan Lal v. Noida) is 43.16 bigha kachcha (14.33 pakka), which are the highest areas as shown in the chart. The smallest area in the chart of the land is 0.12 bigha in First Appeal No. 403 of 2001 (Kalu Ram and others v. Noida). The chart as placed before this Court is made part and parcel of the record. Mr. Misra further contended that the agree­ment for sale was also part and parcel of the land in question, in respect of which the order has already been passed not in respect of the lands in question in these proceedings. Moreover, no reference of agreement for sale in the recital of the sale-deed is not so fatal that the execution of the same will be ignored. Moreover, the sale-deeds were executed in the year 1989 not immediately before or around 1991 when the notification was published. The land area in the exemplar sale-deed is 5-18-10 bigha (pakka). No future potentiality has been considered by the Court. Thus, potentiality before notification as shown by the parties are reflected in the order impugned. Moreover, though circle rate cannot be considered as a basis for fixation of compensation but for the purpose of stamp duty etc. yet evidential value of the same in coming to a finding cannot be said to be irregular. These appeals cannot be said to be different from the appeals, which have been adjudicated by the Court in the earlier occasion. Therefore, Court will only see the parity of these appeals with the other appeals, which have been disposed of by this Court. Basic factors of looking into the parity are two folds herein. Firstly, what is the area of exemplar sale-deed and whether such exemplar sale-deed is executed in the period considerably prior to the date of notifica­tion or not. Secondly, when the land areas of different size lands under differ­ent notifications are accumulated, can the formula of deduction due to large­ness of the land be applicable or not. Lastly, when price of Rs. 297/- per square yard in. respect of the land in Jagdish Chandra (supra) arising out of the notification of the year 1989 in respect of the area of same village is accepted position, the price for the subsequent notification after two years will be less than such amount or not.
(3.) WE have carefully considered the respective submissions of the parties but we cannot deviate ourselves from passing the similar order, which has been passed in Jagdish Chandra (supra). It is true to say that in the case of Jagdish Chandra (supra) "question of no deduction" was considered on the basis of the fact that the authority therein wanted to make a regional park over the acquired land but not residential or commercial complex, for which various common places are required to be made and as such the authority cannot be able to sell substan­tial portion of land to the ultimate purchasers. Firstly, we have to say that there is no legal provision of deduction from the amount of compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Various Courts normally pass such order of deduction on the subjective satisfaction of each case. Therefore, there is no hard and fast rule to make any deduction. Secondly, an important question of double benefit of the authorities was also considered by the Court in Jagdish Chandra (supra) on the basis of today's outlook of the authorities. Fast-growing urbanisation is grasping the rural areas. In fact, the people of rural areas are being pushed back. Today's urbanisation does not restrict the authorities to confine their activities for the benefit of the people but also to carry on business directly or indirectly in collabo­ration with the private parties. Although necessary developments are being car­ried out in such lands either directly or indirectly but the prices are also being fixed by them on the higher side with a competitive outlook with the private par­ties. Thereafter, they are charging development charges from the ultimate purchasers. On the other hand, by virtue of law and legal interpretations, the land owners, who are loosing their lands, can get price available on the date of notifica­tion under Section 4 of the Act. Neither they can get today's price nor they are asking for the same herein. Their contention is that when an earlier notification of the similar area fixed a price, whether they can get lesser price on the basis of the subsequent notification or not. If they get lesser price than the price fixed in respect of the earlier notification, whether the same will create apparent disparity or not. According to us, both the submissions are affirmative in nature and we accept the same. Another aspect is also to be taken care of by the Court on the basis of the submissions as made by the appellants-land owners, whether ques­tion of largeness will be applicable in the acquired land or not. Factually, it ap­pears to us that lands of different sizes were acquired and accumulated by the authorities to project that the land is much large in nature in comparison to exem­plar sale-deeds, which cannot be said to be established fact beyond doubt upon going through the chart having been part and parcel of the record.;