By the Court.—Heard Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Sanjeev Singh on behalf of the appellants, Sri Ramendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for NOIDA and learned Standing Counsel for the State.

2. This bunch of 92 first appeals filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 arise out of common orders of VIII Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad dated 24.3.1993 and dated 30.4.1993 passed by District Judge, Ghaziabad in reference proceedings under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 eminating from the common award dated 1.2.1991 passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, NOIDA.

3. We find from the record that this bunch of appeals was decided by a Division Bench of this Court vide judgement dated 15.4.2015. The claimants’ appeals were partly allowed. 20% deduction made by the Reference Court was held to be bad. The claimants were held entitled for payment of compensation at the rate of Rs. 135/- per square yard as determined by the reference Court without deduction. The appeals filed by NOIDA were dismissed.

4. The claimants not being satisfied with the judgment and order of the Division Bench, filed Special Leave to Appeal before the Apex Court which were granted and converted into civil appeals, leading being Civil Appeal Nos. 1506-1517 of 2016, Pradeep Kumar and others v. State of U.P. and another. The Apex Court vide judgment and order dated 16.2.2016 allowed the appeals and remanded the matter to the High Court to re-consider the same.

5. The judgment and order of the Apex Court is reproduced hereinunder :

“1. Leave granted.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

3. In our opinion certain aspects with regard to the valuation and location of the land have not been properly discussed and therefore, the matters requires reconsideration by the High Court. For instance, we may say that the Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, had been issued on 10th March, 1988. The appellants have been awarded compensation @ Rs. 135/- per square yard for the land belonging to them, whereas in respect of certain land, said to be similarly situated which had been acquired in the year 1986, compensation of Rs. 297/- per square yard had been awarded.

4. We are of the view that the afore-stated aspects have not been clarified because normally the price of the land goes on increasing, but the reasons as to why lesser amount has been given to the appellant, has not been properly explained in the impugned judgment.

5. Be that as it may, the afore-stated fact and some other facts ought to have been discussed in detail. Therefore, we set aside the impugned judgment and remand the cases to the High Court so that they may be reconsidered by the High Court. The appeals are allowed with the above observations with no order as to costs. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.

6. We are sure that the High Court will decide the matters at an early date. The parties shall appear before the High Court on 28th March, 2016, so that date for hearing can be decided on that day.

7. Registry to send intimation of this order to the High Court.

8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants had made a grievance that till today no compensation has been paid to the land owners. If it is so, we are sure that the amount which has been awarded by the Reference Court shall be paid to the appellants as soon as possible, preferably within a period of three months from today.”

6. It is in this background that these appeals have been listed before us again for hearing.

7. At the very outset, we may record that since NOIDA had not preferred any appeal against the judgment of the Division Bench dated 15.4.2015, the order passed in their appeals has become final between the parties. Counsel for the NOIDA has also not addressed us on any of the issues which were raised by NOIDA in their appeals.

8. Out of these 92 appeals, 74 appeals have been filed by NOIDA, while 18 app