JUDGMENT :

1. Sri B. Dayal, Advocate for appellant in both these appeals and Sri M.C. Singh, Advocate, for respondents in First Appeal No. 3 of 2016.

2. In First Appeal No. 264 of 2012, names of three counsel appear for respondents as shown in the cause list, one of whom namely Sri D.K. Mishra has sought adjournment on the ground of illness, but no reason has been assigned as to why other counsel are not present despite the case having been called in revised. In such circumstances, we find no justification to adjourn this matter and proceed to decide present appeals after hearing above mentioned learned counsel appearing for respective parties.

3. Both these appeals arise from two similar but separate Awards of Reference Courts under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "Act 1894"), and have been filed under Section 54 of the said Act. Since they involve common and similar questions of facts and law, therefore, have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.

4. Appeal No. 264 of 2012 (hereinafter referred to as 'Appeal-1') is