The court consistently followed the practice of allowing compensation at least at the same market rate to all the claimants whose land is acquired through the same notification for the same public purpose and situate in the same village, unless there is any other special factor to deviate from the practice.

( 1 ) THESE 37 appeals have been preferred by the claimants as well as by Union of India under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act. 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) - Claimants have sought further enhancement in the amount of compensation whereas Union of India in the appeals filed by it is claiming reduction in the amount of compensation. Some of the claimants have filed cross objections also in the appeals filed by Union of India seeking further enhancement in the amount of compensation.

( 2 ) CONSIDERABLE land situate in village Masoodpur was notified for being acquired for public purpose,, namely ; Planned Development of Delhi on the basis of notification issued under Section 4 of the Act on 24/10/1961. Declaration had not yet been made under section 6 of the Act with respect to the land which was notified for being acquired on 24/10/61 when; another notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 23/1/965 notifying further land for being acquired for public purpose at public expense, namely. Planned development of Delhi.

( 3 ) FOR part of the land notified on 24/10/1961 declaration under Section 6 was made on 5/5/1966 for which the Collector made his award No/1944 on 25/2/1967. For the remaining land declaration under Section 6 was made on 6/8/1966 and the Collector Land Acquisition made his award No. 2040 on 2/12/1967. Under the second notification issued under Section 4 of the Act on 23/1/1965 part of the land was included in notification issued on 6/9/1966 under Section 6 of the Act; and for that land award No. 2225 was made by the Collector on 26/3/1969. For the remaining land declaration under section 6 of the Act was issued on 26/12/1968 and the collector on 22/12/1980 made his award No. 90/80-81.

( 4 ) ON the Collector offering amount of compensation under various awards claimants felt aggrieved and sought references, which were forwarded to the reference court. Some of the references were answered earlier against which appeals were filed in this Court and even further appeals were filed in supreme Court, which stand disposed of. Out of the Collector s award No. 2040 dated 2/12/1967 and award No. 2225 dated 26/3/1949 four references were answered by the reference court by separate awards which were also challenged by Union. in four appeals which were heard by us along with these appeals. In the four appeals and these appeals the precise question was about the determination of the amount of compensation payable to the claimants for their lands acquired; through notification dated 24/10/1961 and 23/1/1965.

( 5 ) BY a common Judgment delivered by up in RFA 83/87 Union of India Vs Rajiv Gupta and Ors. the said four appeals have been decided to day holding the fair market value of the land acquired through notification issued under Section 4 of the Act on 24/10/1961 at rs. 30. 00 per/ sq. yard and Rs. 58. 00 per sq. yard respectively for land without china clay and land with china clay. Fair market value for the land acquired through subsequent notification dated 23/1/1965 has also been determined in the said judgment for the land with china clay and land without china clay at Rs. 98. 00 per sq. yard and Rs. 72. 00 per sq. yard respectively. In these cases also learned counsel for the claimants had urged that the claimants will be entitled to compensation at the same rate as would be determined in rfa 83/87 since the lands acquired through the two notifications were similarly situated having similar potentiality. Topography, situation and potentiality of the land acquired through the two notifications situate within, the same. revenue estate of Masoodpur has been noticed by us in the decision rendered by us today and for that reason no separate determination deserves to be made in these appeals. This court consistently following the practice (if allowing compensation at least at the same market rate to all the claimants whose land is acquired through the same notification for the same