JUDGMENT :

Vikas Budhwar, J.

1. Since common question of law is involved in both the petitions, the same are being decided by a composite order.

2. For the sake of clarity Writ-C No.6415 of 2023 is being treated as a leading petition.

3. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was presented on 28th February, 2023 and on 3.3.2023 this Court proceeded to pass the following order:-

“The order of rejection of the application under Section 28A filed by the petitioner herein indicates that the petitioners have accepted the award prepared by the Collector under Section 11(2) of the Land Acquisition Act. The issue, therefore, is as to whether after accepting compensation under the Karar Niyamawali, the petitioners can claim higher compensation determined under the reference court award, filed by such persons who did not accept the award.

Learned counsel for the petitioners prays for and is granted adjournment for the day to enable him to go through the matter to make his submission.

As prayed, put up this matter as fresh on 20.03.2023.”

4. Thereafter the matter was taken on 21.4.2023 wherein this Court passed an order which is extracted as below:-

“Case is called out. No one appears on behalf of the petitioners to press the case.

Sri Apurva Hajela, learned Standing Counsel appears for the State-respondents.

Put up this case in the additional cause list on 27.04.2023 at 02:00 PM.”

5. Today when the matter has been taken up, nobody appears either in the leading writ petition or in the connected writ petition, despite that on earlier occasion also the learned counsel for the writ petitioners were not present. Since both the cases are connected together and were directed to be placed on 27.4.2023 as a date fixed matter at 2.00 p.m. nobody appeared for the petitioners thus after hearing Sri Apoorv Hajela learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Sri M.N. Singh, who appears for the third respondent, Ghaziabad Development Authority, Ghaziabad, the court is proceeding to decide the matters.

6. The case of the writ petitioners in the leading writ petition is that, they claim to be the recorded owners of certain piece of land situate in Tehsil Loni, Pargana and District Ghaziabad. As per the pleadings, acquisition proceedings were initiated by the State of U.P. under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (In Short the Act, 1894) for public purpose. The notification purported to be under Section 4(I) of the Act, 1894 was issued on 9.2.1962. Possession of the acquired land was taken on 26.5.1963, the award was made on 1.2.1964 for 236.7735 acres of land and a total compensation of Rs.7,35,707.24 was awarded.

7. It is the case of the writ petitioners that the compensation was initially awarded @ Rs.1.92 per square yard for the first belt, Rs.0.96 per square yard for the second belt and 0.48 per sq. yard for third belt which was found to be inadequate, so references were made under Section 18 of the Act, 1894 before the District Judge, Ghaziabad by various claimants.

8. It is further the case of the writ petitioners, that they did not prefer any objection under Section 18 of the Act, 1894. The objections of the land owners (not the writ petitioners) were registered as LAR No.172 of 1989 which was connected with other land acquisition references and by virtue of the order dated 10.4.1992 passed in LAR No.172 of 1989 and LAR No.18 of 1989, the reference court enhanced the compensation to the tune of Rs.40 per square yard, the claimants were also made entitled to additional amount calculated at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the acquisition under Section 4(I) of the Act, 1894 i.e. 9.2.1962 to the date of taking possession on 26.5.1993, solatium at the rate 30% on the market value of the land sought to be acquired while further entitling the claimants to get interest at @ 9% per annum w.e.f. the date