JUDGMENT : P.K. Misra, J. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State. Since counter affidavit has been filed in O. J. C. No. 6684 of 1994 and similar questions are raised, it is not necessary for the State Government to file counter in other cases. All the writ applications have been taken up together for disposal at the time of admission on consent of the learned counsels appearing for the parties. 2. All these writ applications raise the common question of giving effect to the Rehabilitation Package to the displaced inhabitants of village Salachua in the district of Mayurbhanj. While acquiring lands under the Land Acquisition Act for the purpose of Sunei Dam, a Scheme had been prepared and it had been given out by the Government that 30 cents of homestead land and Ac. 6.00 of non-Irrigated land or Ac. 3.00 of irrigated land, as the case may be, shall be given to the families whose lands had been acquired. The entire village was submerged after the construction of the Dam on river Sunei. Subsequently, it was found that it was not possible for the Government to allot land to all the affected families. Accordingly, the Government afforded to pay money in lieu of allotment of such land. Dispute having arisen relating to the amount to be given in lieu of such allotment of land, series of cases had been filed in this Court by the villagers. One such case was decided by a Division Bench of this Court in O. J. C. No. 7614 of 1994 by judgment dated 24-2-1997, reported in 83 (1997) C. L. T. 760 (Kruposindhu Parida and others v. State of Orissa and others). In the said writ application, counter had been filed wherein it had been indicated that the villagers had agreed to accept the compensation to be afforded to them. However, considering all the aspects, the Division Bench observed in paragraph-6 of the judgment :-- "6. Having heard in details and considering the further affidavits filed on behalf of opposite party No. 1, we are of the view that as per the policy Resolution (Annexure-1) the required lands have not been given to the petitioners. Valuation of such land so made appears to be meagre and without any proper basis. Valuation claimed does not fulfil the test. Valuation of such land so made appears to be meagre and without any proper basis. Valuation claimed does not fulfil the test. The writ petitioners are illiterate Scheduled Tribes. They have lost their hearth and home. The policy is very clear to provide alternative land for homestead and also for agriculture. It is not to deprive them by offering a price which is not just and fair. On perusal of the materials on record, we are of the view that the petitioners are moved from pillar to post and no effective steps have been taken. We find sufficient merit in the contentions of the writ petitioners, We accordingly allow the writ petition directing the Special Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation Officer to give further opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and take effective steps to offer the land as per the policy and if lands are not available, make proper valuation as on the date of offer to be made together with all recurring interest in the manner as provided in the Land Acquisition Act and settle the dispute within a period of three months from the date of communication of the order. ..." 3. It is stated at the Bar that pursuant to the aforesaid direction, in respect of the petitioners involved in the said O. J. C. No. 7614 of 1994, further amount has been assessed and disbursed. Some of the similar cases filed in the year 1994 are still pending and some other villagers have subsequently filed writ applications claiming payment of amount at the same rate. 4. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State has submitted that the petitioners having agreed td accept the amount offered by the Government cannot subsequently turn back and claim higher amount. It is further submitted that compensation payable under the Land Acquisition Act has already been paid and as such it is not open to the petitioners to claim amount at the market rate in lieu of the land compensation for which was paid to them. In short, be has submitted that the ratio of the earlier decision should not be applied to the present batch of cases. 5. The Government itself had offered rehabilitation package in addition to the amount to be paid under the Land Acquisition Act. Therefore, it is not open to the Government to contend subsequently that the same rehabilitation package should not be enforced. 5. The Government itself had offered rehabilitation package in addition to the amount to be paid under the Land Acquisition Act. Therefore, it is not open to the Government to contend subsequently that the same rehabilitation package should not be enforced. In normal course, thirty decimals of homestead land and six acres of non-irrigated land, or three acres of irrigated land, as the case may be, should have been given to the affected families. However, since the Government was unable to provide such land, it had offered to pay amount in lieu of such land: The Division Bench decision of this Court relating to the very same village, which is otherwise binding on me, has also been implemented in respect of some of the affected families of the very same village. It appears that SLP in S.L. P. (Civil) No. CC-4280/98 before the Supreme Court field against the earlier decision reported in 83 (1997) C. L. T. 760 has proved to be fruitless. Therefore, it would not be proper to discriminate between those petitioners and the present set of petitioners. Keeping in view all these aspects, the writ applications are allowed with a direction that the eligible persons should be paid amount as per the determination already made pursuant to the direction contained in the decision reported in 83 (1997) C L T. 760. Such order should be complied with by end of December, 2000. In the peculiar facts and circumstances. I make no order as to costs. 6. Writ applications allowed. Final Result : Allowed