ORDER
Khan, J.
1. All these appeals arise out of land acquisition in Village Bahapur pursuant to Section 4 Notification dated 3.9.1957 and being identical on facts and law are disposed off by this common judgment.
2. Appellants land was acquired pursuant to aforesaid Section 4 Notification and they were awarded compensation of Rs.1,500/- P.B. by Collector which was enhanced to Rs.2,000/- P.B. by Reference Court and finally raised to Rs.4,000/- P.B. by the First Appellate Court in RFAs filed by them. While doing so First Appellate Court relied upon a Division Bench Judgment of this Court titled Navin Urban Thrift and Credit Society Vs. Union of India (RFA 148-D of 1966) decided on 8.8.1977 awarding compensation of Rs.4,000/- per bigha in Village Bahapur in reference to Section 4 Notification of the same year.
3. Appellants feel aggrieved of this and have filed this appeal claiming compensation of Rs.7,500/- per bigha on the ground that First Appellate Court ought to have followed a Division Bench Judgment of this Court in M/s D.L.F. Housing and Construction (P) Ltd. Vs. Union of India which awarded a higher compensation for acquired land in adjacent Rajouri Garden. Appellants further case is that First Appellate Court should have relied upon evidence of comparable sale deeds and taken in regard subsequent DB Judgment of this Court in LPA 70/80 in R.N.Tikku Vs. UOI awarding compensation of Rs.14,308/- per bigha in reference to Section 4 Notification dated 13.11.1959. It is submitted by L/C for Appellant Mr. Vashisht that when two sets of valuation were available, the court ought to have gone by the one fixing higher market value.
4. The area of controversy was narrowed down by our order dated 17.1.2001 and all that required to be determined was whether award passed by First Appellate Court could be faulted inspite of its reliance on a DB Judgment in Navin Cooperative Society’s case which the court was bound to follow and whether any subsequent DB Judgment of this Court dealing with subsequent acquisition Notifications related to an adjoining/adjacent land was required to be taken into consideration for purposes of enhancing the compensation in the present cases.
5. It is by now well settled that a DB judgment is binding on the Single Bench and it has no choice but to follow it. Therefore, no fault can be found with award made by First Appellate Court by placing reliance on the DB Judgment of this Court in Navin Cooperative Society’s case dealing with land acquired in the same village and persuant to same Notification. Nor was the First Appellate Court required to take in regard any subsequent DB Judgment of this Court referable to a subsequent acquisition Notification. This is not a case where any counter DB Judgment was available dealing with the same Section 4 Notification of the same Village which could result in a conflict of judicial decisions providing an option to FAC to swim with either or to reconcile the two for determination of market value. As such FAC had no choice in the matter but to follow the DB Judgment in Navin Cooperative Society holding the field till date as nothing was shown to have superseded it. There was no other worthwhile evidence also which the court could have fallen back upon to take a different view in the matter. Nor was it obliged to follow any subsequent DB Judgment of this Court dealing with a separate acquisition notification of an adjoining/adjacent land. Support for this is drawn from a Supreme Court Judgment in 1993 SC 222 laying down as under:
“Judgments of the High Courts given in a large number of cases determining the market value of lands acquired in a huge tract at uniform rates cannot be revised, solely on the basis of claim made on behalf of claimants that a Judge of the same High Court in a subsequent stray case has awarded a higher compensation for a piece of land said to be in the same tract of the acquired lands. If recourse is taken to such procedure, the market value already determined in a large number of cases at uniform rates may go on requiring either enhancement or reduction, whenever subsequent judgment of the Court in a stray case brings about a variation in the market value of land concerned. Such procedure if is restored to by Courts in determination of market value of lands lying in large tracts based on previous awards or judgments can never reach finality. Besides, recourse to such procedure could give ample scope for making of arbitrary and fanciful awards in land acquisition cases.”
6. In this view of the matter it cannot be said or held that First Appellate Court had fallen in error or had committed any illegality or irregularity by adopting DB Judgment in Naveen Co-operative Society’s case and by not following the other DB Judgment in which dealt with a different adjacent land or for that matter LPA 70/80 which was passed in reference to different subsequent Section 4 Notification.
7. For all this we find no merit in these Appeals which are dismissed to affirm the award made by FAC. The applications for amendment made in LPA No.250 and 251/79 would also meet the same fate and are rejected.