JUDGMENT

Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, J.

1. All these appeals are arising out of the land acquisition proceeding in which various notifications under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") were issued in proximity of time, i.e. in 1981, with respect to adjoining lands in the Erode and Periasemur Villages for the construction of houses for the scheme called "Erode West Neighbourhood Scheme" and therefore we propose to decide them by a common judgment and order. The Civil Appeal Nos. 1760-1761 are directed against final judgment and order dated 18-01-2001 passed by the Madras High Court in Appeal No.298/92 and CMP No. 15057/97 wherein the High Court by its impugned judgment partly allowed the appeal filed by the Respondent and declined to condone the delay of 7 days in filing the Cross appeal by the appellants and consequently, dismissed the CMP No. 15057/97. Consequent thereto, the cross-appeal of the Appellants was also dismissed without going into merit. The Civil Appeal No. 6875-6877/04 and 7434/04 are directed against the final judgment and order dated 17/10/03 passed in A.S. Nos. 754/02, 759/02. 760/02 and 128/92 by the Madras High Court whereby the High Court by its impugned judgment and order dismissed the appeals filed by the appellants.

2. The appellants were not satisfied with the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, so there were LAOPs filed before the Reference Court. The Reference Court enhanced the compensation and fixed it at the rate of Rs. 6/- per sq. ft. Both the appellants and respondent filed appeals before the High Court. The High Court was pleased to remand back the appeals to the Reference Court except A.S. No. 298/92.

3. In A.S. No. 298/92, the appellants moved CMP No. 15057/97 to condone the delay of 7 days in filing the cross objection. The High Court dismissed the said application. Consequently, the cross appeal of appellants was dismissed. As far as the appeal filed by the respondent in A.S. no. 298/92 was concerned, the High Court referred its judgment in A.S. No. 71/92 which was in reference to the same scheme for the adjoining survey no. and in which the High Court enhanced the market value to Rs. 9/- per sq. ft. and thereby the High Court in its impugned judgment and order dated 18/1/2001 also enhanced the market value of the land involved in A.S. No. 298/92 to Rs. 9/- per sq. ft., and deducted 33-1/3% towards development charges and ultimately the compensation was fixed at Rs. 6/- per sq. ft. The High Court also rejected the claim of interest on solatium u/s 23 (2) and additional compensation u/s 23(1A) of the Act.

4. As far as the matters remanded back are concerned, the Reference Court fixed compensation at the rate of Rs. 6/- per sq. ft. after remand for the lands involved in LAOP Nos. 4/87, 9/87, 19/87 and 25/87, against which A.S. No. 754/02, 759/02, 760/02 and 128/92 were made. Simultaneously, by separate orders, the Reference Court in LAOP Nos. 22/87, 24/87, 26/87 and 410/00, which were matters involving neighbouring lands for the same housing scheme and which were also remanded back by the High Court, fixed compensation at the rate of Rs. 13-14/- per sq. ft., against which appeals were also filed. All these appeals were decided by the High Court by judgment and order dated 17/10/03 whereby the High Court reduced the compensation of 13-14/- per sq. ft. awarded in LAOP Nos. 22/87, 24/87, 26/87 and 410/00 by the Reference Court to 6.25/- per sq. ft., while A.S. Nos. 754/02, 759/02, 760/02 and 128/92 were dismissed upholding the compensation @ 6/- per sq. ft. We have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties at length. The principal issue that arises for our consideration is what would be the reasonable compensation for the acquired lands in the present case. The learned counsel for Appellants contended before us that the Reference Court in LAOP Nos. 22/87, 24/87, 26/87 and 410/00 fixed compensation at the rate of R