Hon’ble Arvind Kumar Tripathi-II, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

2. These four first appeals have arisen out of the judgment and decree dated 9.7.1999 passed by Additional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar in Land Acquisition Reference Case No. 64/70 of 1997 Anil Kumar and others v. Union of India and others and Land Acquisition Reference Case No. 92/70 of 1997, Deoraj and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others.

3. These two references were decided by a single judgment and both state and claimants have preferred their respective appeals, hence all the cases are being taken together.

4. Briefly stated, the claimants of the two cases, are owners of land Khasra plot Nos. 42 and 43 (area 0-17-10) which is equal to 2144Sq. Yards situate in village Shafipur, Kanpur Nagar, known as Lal Banglow. The claimants of Misc. Case No. 64/70 of 97 Anil Kumar and others are the owners of the above land to the extent of 2/3rd share while the claimant of Misc. Case No. 92/70 of 97 are owners of 1/3rd share. The possession of the above land is said to have taken place some time in the year 1971 for construction of the stadium of Air Force and there was some talk about the settlement of compensation and exchange of land, but this could not be finalised and the case went up to the High Court. The High Court vide order dated 7.2.1996 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 23834 of 1995 directed the State Government to acquire the above land under the Land Acquisition Act. Consequently, the notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 16.2.1997 and notification under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was made on 18.3.1997. The formal possession of the above land is alleged to have been taken on 31.3.1997 and the award was also made on 31.3.1997.In the award the S.L.A.O. Kanpur Nagar found the acquired land as potential for building purpose and awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per sq. yard. Aggrieved by this award the claimants filed this two references, References Case No. 64/70 of 1997 Anil Kumar and others v. Union of India and others and Reference Case No. 92/70 of 1997 Deoraj and others v. State of U.P. and others.

5. It has been alleged by the claimant that the possession of the acquired land was taken in the year 1969 and on the land there were 45 Sheesham Trees. They claimed the market value of the acquired land to be Rs. 5,000/- on the date of notification and the alleged compensation is insufficient and inadequate. It has been further alleged that the acquired land is situate at the heart of Lal Banglow which is highly modernised commercial area abutting to Jajmau area internationally famous for leather and leather goods. It was also alleged that the land was surrounded by roads, markets etc. and on account of dispossession the claimant have suffered a loss and have not been properly awarded interest and solatium.

6. Opposite parties No. 1, 2 and 4 filed common written statement and denied the allegations advanced in the claim petition. But admitted that the acquisition proceedings started as per direction of the Hon’ble High Court in Writ Petition No. 23834 of 1995 and Khasra plots No. 42 and 43 were acquired under the Land Acquisition Act. They further alleged that the compensation awarded by the S.L.A. O. Kanpur is sufficient and adequate and alleged that the acquired land is far from Kanpur City and as such the claimants not entitled for any additional amount.

7. Opposite party No. 3 filed their separate written statement and denied the allegations advanced in the claim petition and alleging that the compensation awarded by the S.L.A.O. Kanpur is sufficient and proper.

The learned Court below framed following issue :

1. Whether the compensation award is inadequate, if yes, at what rate they are entitled to get compensation of the acquired land.

2. On which date possession was claimed by the Government of India and what will be its effect.

3. Whether cl