Hon’ble Amitava Lala, J.—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 30th 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. 125/- 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.

3. 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