A. Raghuvir, C J. — In this group of nine writ petitions the impugned order is that of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sibsagar dated December 12, 1971 which was the subject of an appeal. The Assam Board of Revenue the appellate authority held the appeals were not maintainable. Thereupon the Oil & Natural Gas Commission, Eastern Region, Nazira the appellant before the Board of Revenue approached this Court in Civil Rule Nos. 155-163/74 and by the judgment on May 14, 1980 this Court held the appeals were properly filed and directed the Board of Revenue to consider the issues raised in the appeal on merits. Thus the subject matter was remitted to the Assam Board of Revenue. The impugned orders are passed after the remand by this Court. The Board of Revenue now held the Appeal Nos., 133,180, 185 and 196 of 1972 are barred by limitation. The five other appeals 123, 134, 135, 179, 216 of 1972 were dismissed after considering the merits of the oases. The question now raised in the instant writ petitions falls on a short ground. , Therefore we set out the relevant para of the order which is attacked in the instant writ petitions. “,..The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the rate was fixed ex parte and arbitrarily. At the time of handing over possession of the land with tea bushes thereon, no objection was ever invited from the respondents. On the ex parte application of the appellants, the possession of the land with tea bushes thereon was handed over to the appellant. While acquiring land under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, notices are issued inviting objection and thereafter, compensation as reasonable and proper is determined. There is no scope of hearing while acquiring land under the L. A. Act and determining compensation. It is only when a reference is made to the District Judge against the compensation determined by the Collector that evidence is adduced and award is given. While assessing the damage under Rule 189, neither the owner of the land nor the authority, in whose favour the land is acquired has any scope of adducing evidence. It is upto the Deputy Commissioner or the Sub-Divisional Officer to assess the damage to the land etc. While assessing the damage under Rule 189, neither the owner of the land nor the authority, in whose favour the land is acquired has any scope of adducing evidence. It is upto the Deputy Commissioner or the Sub-Divisional Officer to assess the damage to the land etc. and in the cases in hand, the Sub-divisional Officer after taking into consideration, the valuation fixed in two earlier land acquisition cases and the offer made by the! O. N." G. G., quite rightly and justifiably fixed the value of the tea bushes @ Rs. 10/-per bush. By his order dtd. 22. 12. 71 the Sub-divisional Officer fixed the value of saplings @ 25 P. The learned counsels for the respondents have referred to the cost of rearing the tea-plants and have submitted that the fixation of the value of the sapling was inadequate. As there was no cross-objection in this regard, we are to confirm the assessment made by the Sub-divisional Officer." (para 26 of the impugned order). The Board of Revenue interpreted Rule 189 of the Revenue Regulation and passed the above order. Clauses (i) to (iii) of that rule directs, the licensee shall not enter land except with the consent of the land-holder, or in the absence of such consent, without the written authority of the Deputy Commissioner. The licensee while he enters is not to damage trees, standing crops, building, huts, structures except with the consent of the land holder, without the written authority of the Deputy Commissioner. In the event of any damage is caused to the property of the land holders on consent, or after the written authority such a damage caused is to be ascertained. In this regard the relevant clause reads as under, "(iv) The Deputy Commissioner may assess or cause to be assessed any damage or injury which may be done by the licensee to the property of the occupier of the land or of any other person and may pay the amount so assessed to such occupier or other person out of the deposit made by the licensee." Under the above clause the Deputy Commissioner is to assess the damage if any caused by the licensee to the property of the land holder. The licensee is required to pay compensation for the damage caused to the lands. The licensee is required to pay compensation for the damage caused to the lands. If the Deputy Commissioner is the person to determine the compensation the persons to be paid are the land holders. The person to pay is the ONGC in the instant cases. If damages are to be determined it has to be as the two are the affected parties. The damages cannot be ascertained without hearing the affected parties. Therefore, the conclusion of the Board of Revenue that the writ petitioner or by implication the land holder need not be heard when damage is assessed cannot be sustained. We therefore cannot confirm either the reasoning or the conclusion reached by the Board o Revenue. Even the analogy drawn in para 26 of the impugned order land acquisition proceedings is not well founded. In the proceedings of award by the Land Acquisition Officer under the Land Acquisition Act I of 1894, the land holders and persons interested have a right to adduce evidence before the Land Acquisition Officer. The impugned order of the Board of Revenue in Case Nos. 123, 134, 135, 179 and 216 of 1972 for the aforesaid reasons is quashed. In other four appeals a similar issue arose but the appeals were disposed as barred by under limitation. Having regard to our decision as regards five appeals in the interest of justice since a like question arises in these cases we deem it proper in exercise of the power under Article 226 of the Constitution similar order to follow also in Case Nos. P3, 180, 175 and 196 of 1972. In the instant cases the impugned order of Sub-divisional Officer, Sibsagar is of December 24, 1971 unfortunately the subject matter is pending consideration before the Board of Revenue and in this Court for all these years. It is represented pending these proceedings some amounts were paid to the land holders by the ONGC. We think it expedient the land holders be paid at the rate of Rs. 10/-(Rupees ten) per tea bush by the ONGC after adjusting what was paid heretofore in two months from today. It is represented pending these proceedings some amounts were paid to the land holders by the ONGC. We think it expedient the land holders be paid at the rate of Rs. 10/-(Rupees ten) per tea bush by the ONGC after adjusting what was paid heretofore in two months from today. To obviate controversy we direct the Deputy Commissioner, Sibsagar (as he is the authority now in the altered set up of the Sibsagar District) to hear the land holders and the licensee, ascer­tain the damages and pass orders in accordance with law within four months after receipt of this order. We further direct the final orders be communicated individually to the land holders so that the land holders if advised may have recourse to appeals. The nine writ petitions are allowed in the terms set out above. No costs. Dr. B. P. Saraf, J. — I agree.