Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 908 (JHR)

State Of Bihar v. Chinibas Mahto And Soma Debya

2007-12-06

M.Y.EQBAL

body2007
JUDGMENT M.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. More than 10,000 families who are the members of the Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes and other communities were dispossessed from their agricultural lands 45-50 years back under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act when their lands were acquired in the year 1959-1962 for the purpose of construction of 4th Steel Plant at Bokaro for erection of Iron and Steel, ancillary works and industries and on the said land Bokaro Steel Plant of Steel Authority of India was established and possession of the said land was given by the State to the Bokaro Steel Plant in 1964. Unfortunate part is that those raiyats and land losers have still not been paid heir rightful and legitimate compensation amount so enhanced by the Land Acquisition Judge because of the fact that the State of Bihar, now Jharkhand have challenged those awards passed by the Land Acquisition Judge by filing these appeals before this Court which are pending for the last 16 years. 2. About 46 appeals and 10,312 applications under Section 28A are still pending and those persons are waiting for payment of compensation. It is not only violation of their legal right but human-right also. On 1.5.2006, these appeals were taken up by the learned single Judge and the same was referred to the Division Bench. While referring the matter to the Division Bench, learned single Judge, considering the provisions of Section 89 of the C.P.C. and the Mandate of the Supreme Court, expressed his feelings that it is high time the dispute be settled through Alternative Dispute Redressal Forum so that those poor land losers could get compensation for their land. 3. When the matter was placed before the Division Bench, this Court shocked and surprised to take notice of the fact that for the last 50 years those land losers who were deprived of their livelihood because of dispossession from their lands could not be paid their legitimate and rightful compensation. We were, therefore, compelled to direct the Chief Secretary. Revenue Secretary, Finance Commissioner. Secretaries of the Water Resources and Agriculture Department to appear before the Division Bench. Accordingly, on 2.5.2006 the matter was heard by the Division Bench and the following order was passed: Heart in part. Both the appeals have been preferred by the State against the judgment dated 21st September. 1998 and the award dated 3rd November. Revenue Secretary, Finance Commissioner. Secretaries of the Water Resources and Agriculture Department to appear before the Division Bench. Accordingly, on 2.5.2006 the matter was heard by the Division Bench and the following order was passed: Heart in part. Both the appeals have been preferred by the State against the judgment dated 21st September. 1998 and the award dated 3rd November. 1990, passed by the Land Acquisition Judge, Chas, in L.A. Reference Case Nos. 360 of 1976 and 1 of 1989. The lands, in question, were acquired by the State in the year, 1960-61 in favour of the Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro. A number of awards were prepared in favour of different claimants and many of them, being dissatisfied with the award amount, moved for reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. On similar issues, judgments having already been delivered by Division Bench of this Court (Ranchi Bench of Patna High Court), following those judgments, the Land Acquisition Judge answered the two reference in favour of the claimants and held that the claimants are entitled for compensation at the rate of Rs. 8,000/- per acre for paddy land and Rs. 6,000/- per acre for Gora land. The judgment of the Division Bench, on the basis of which references were answered, related to some other lands, acquired by the State for same purpose in favour of the Bokaro Steel Plant, at that relevant point of time. The Division Benchs judgment, not having been challenged by the State before the Supreme Court, has already reached finality. The appeals, which are pending before the High Court for about fifteen years, could not be taken up due to pendency of large number of cases and shortage of Judges. Before division of the State of Bihar, a decision was taken that where compensation amount does not exceed Rs. 25,000/- no appeal should be preferred by the state and the appeal(s),already preferred, should be withdrawn. After creation of the State of Jharkhand. similar decision was taken by the State of Jharkhand from its Water Resources Development Department vide letter No. 14/03-OA-43/2002 : 3002, Ranchi dated 19th September, 2002. The State of Jharkhand also decided not lo prefer any appeal where compensation amount does not exceed Rs. 25,000/ and to withdraw the appeal(s), if preferred against such judgment(s) and award(s). Such decision were been taken in public interest. The State of Jharkhand also decided not lo prefer any appeal where compensation amount does not exceed Rs. 25,000/ and to withdraw the appeal(s), if preferred against such judgment(s) and award(s). Such decision were been taken in public interest. Section 89 was inserted by Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act. 1999 with effect from 1st July. 2002 and provision was made enabling the Court to find out, if there exists element of settlement, which may be acceptable to the parties, to formulate the terms of settlement and give them to the parties for their observation and after receiving the observation of the parties, to formulate the terms of a possible settlement and to refer the same for settlement through alternative forum for resolution (Alternative Dispute Resolution-ADR). The Jharkhand High Court Legal Services Authority has intended to hold a Lok Adalat on 7th May. 2006. To find out whether appeals, pending against the orders, passed in Land Acquisition Cases, can be settled outside the Court in Lok Adalat, step was taken under Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the learned single Judge (one of us M.Y. Eqbal, J.), it having come to the notice of the Court that there are large number of cases where lands were acquired abut 40-45 years back and the matter has not yet been settled because of large number of appeals, preferred by the State, irrespective of the quantum of compensation amount, awarded to the claimants-land losers. Considering the fact that the lands were acquired in the year, 1961-62 and the Land Acquisition Judge, besides determining the compensation amount also directed to pay additional compensation at the rate of 12% on the market value from the date of notification, issued about fifty years back i.e. on 10th August, 1956 and the solatium at the rate of 30% on the market value as also the further interest at the rate of 9% and 15% as provided under Section 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, the learned single Judge was of the, view that the matter should be settled before the Lok Adalat. Public interest being involved and as the State spends the money for fighting out litigations and if the case is not decided immediately and ultimately the case is lost, the State is to cought huge amount, which ultimately burdens the public exchequer, so the case was referred by learned single Judge to Division Bench for hearing and the Chief Secretary, Revenue Secretary, Finance Commissioner, Secretary, Water Resources Development Department Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi, as also the Agriculture Secretary were directed to appear before the Court to answer as to why they be not ready to comply with the mandate of the Parliament, as contemplated under Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and the similar mandate of the Supreme Court. The aforesaid officers appeared today but shown inability for settlement outside the Court. One of us (M.Y. Eqbal, J.) while referring the appeals to the Division Bench noticed that the present matter is pending for last 45 years and in the event, the appeals fail, the State will have to pay ten times more than the amount of compensation, assessed by the Land Acquisition Judge. This fact was brought to the notice of the State authorities, who are present in the Court, and it was suggested to compromise the matter and to withdraw the appeals in cases, where compensation amount has been awarded up to Rs. 1,00,000/- which may ultimately be in the financial interest of the State. It was brought to their notice that even if the appellate Court interferes with the order, passed by the Land Acquisition Judge, the total compensation amount will not be set aside and, at best the compensation amount may be brought down and above 70 to 80 per cent of the compensation amount may have to be paid. In that case also, if the State contests the cases and they remain pending for about 45 years and 70 to 80 per cent of the awarded compensation is paid with additional compensation, solatium and interest, as provided under Section 23(2), in such case after about 40 to 45 years, the State will have to bear much more amount than the amount, if the original compensation amount would have been paid 45 years back, without contesting the cases. Inspite of the aforesaid discussions, no cooperation having been made by the State authorities and as the learned Advocate General also failed to pursue the State authorities and did not agree for settlement, we are of the view that apart from decision of the cases on merit, it may be determined whether in public interest the State should contest the case up to appellate stage, if the amount of compensation does not exceed Rs. 1,00,000/- and if the matter remains pending for more than five years in a Court of law? Parties should be ready for hearing on merit and on the issue, as framed above. Let both the cases be listed for further hearing under the heading for orders on 12th May, 2006. 4. The matter was again heard and adjourned. On 12.9.2006, the learned Counsel appearing for the Bokaro Steel Plant informed that about 7000 applications are pending under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act before the Collector-cum-Land Acquisition Officer, Bokaro. Learned Counsel further informed that the Steel Authority of India Ltd. is interested to settle all the claims so that State of Jharkhand could finally transfer those lands in favour of the Company by executing a deed of conveyance. It was submitted that all cases shall be settled with the help of Lok Adalats. After hearing the parties, this Court constituted a Committee consisting of Conciliator appointed by State Legal Services Authority, Mr. Sandip Tula, A.G.M. (Personel). Managing Director, Secretariat Bokaro Steel Plant, SAIL and Mr. M.P. Sinha, A.G.M. (Project) Bokaro Steel Plant, SAIL, Mr. Rajiv Ranjan. Advocate and the Director (Project) Land and Rehabilitation, Bokaro. The Law Secretary, Govt. of Jharkhand was nominated as Convenor of the Committee and was directed to submit detailed report as to number of cases pending before the Land Acquisition Officer and the amount which the company is ready to pay. 5. In compliance of the aforesaid order a preliminary report was submitted on 27.10.2006 by the Committee constituted by this Court consisting of Law Secretary, State of Jharkhand, Conciliator. State Legal Services Authority, A.G.M. (Personel), Bokaro Steel Plant, A.G.M. (Project), Bokaro Steel Plant, Director (Project), Land and Rehabilitation, Bokaro and the Secretary, Department of Law and Justice. Government of Jharkhand stating therein. State Legal Services Authority, A.G.M. (Personel), Bokaro Steel Plant, A.G.M. (Project), Bokaro Steel Plant, Director (Project), Land and Rehabilitation, Bokaro and the Secretary, Department of Law and Justice. Government of Jharkhand stating therein. inter alia, that about 46 First Appeal and 10 eases under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and altogether, 10167 applications under Section 28A of the Act relating to 19 villages are pending before the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bokaro. The Committee sought two months more time for submitting final report. Ultimately, the committee submitted final report on 28.11.2006. In the said report it was mentioned that about 10,312 applications under Section 28A of the Act are pending and tentative compensation amount likely to be paid in the event the applicants succeed, shall be about Rs. 54.05,79,042/-. The committee, after deliberations and discussions, came to the conclusion that approximately about Rs. 65,12,10,415/- shall be the total liability. In the said report it was also mentioned that the SAIL/Bokaro Steel Plant is ready to pay the entire liability in the event deed of conveyance is executed by the State in favour of the Company. 6. For better appreciation, final report of the Committee is reproduced herein below: The Honbie Jharkhand High Court vide order dated 12.9.2006 in F.A. Nos. 45/1991 (R) and 46/1991 (R) has constituted a committee consisting of Conciliator, State Legal Services Authority Mr. Sandip Tula, A.G.M. Personnel. Bokaro Steel Plant, Mr. M.P. Sinha A.G.M. (Project), Bokaro Steel Plant, Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Advocate, Jharkhand High Court and Director (Project), Land and Rehabilitation, Bokaro, Secretary, Department of Law and Justice, Government of Jharkhand and has been made convenor of the said com mittee. The Honbie Court had directed the committee to submit a detailed report as to the number of cases pending before the Honbie High Court. Land Acquisition Judge, Bokaro and before the Land Acquisition Officer, Bokaro and the amount for which the Bokaro Steel Plant is ready to pay. In view of the direction of Honble High Court the Committee had held four meetings on 21.9.2006. 14.10.2006, 25.11.2006 and 28.11.2006 and made detail deliberation with respect to the reference made before the committee. Land Acquisition Judge, Bokaro and before the Land Acquisition Officer, Bokaro and the amount for which the Bokaro Steel Plant is ready to pay. In view of the direction of Honble High Court the Committee had held four meetings on 21.9.2006. 14.10.2006, 25.11.2006 and 28.11.2006 and made detail deliberation with respect to the reference made before the committee. It is pertinent to mention that from the years 1956 to 1982 various lands in the present district of Bokaro had been acquired for Bokaro Steel Plant and earlier some compensation had also been paid to the land owners by the State Government from the revolving fund of the Bokaro Steel Plant. However, being dissatisfied with the amount of compensation, some of the land owners had filed cases before the Land Acquisition Judge. Bokaro. It is also pertinent to mention that some of the cases which relates to land acquisition notification No. 9059 dated 9.8.1956 had been decided by the Land Acquisition Judge, Bokaro in the year 1987 and after the said judgment different applicants belonging to 19 villages had filed altogether 10,312 cases before the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bokaro under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act. The details of aforesaid applications village wise along with the name of applicants and other details has been compiled by Special Land Acquisition Officer. Bokaro on the instruction of the committee. Special Land Acquisition Officer had submitted photostat copy of the said details before the committee on 12.11.2000, the said details are annexed herewith along with this report and marked as Annexure1 series being enclosed separately. On the instruction of the committee, the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bokaro also submitted tentative compensation amount which is required to be paid to different applicants who filed application under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act. From perusal of aforesaid statement, the committee found that Rs. 54,05,79,042/- is required to be paid as against 10,312 applications under Section 28A, the details of the calculation of aforesaid amount submitted by Special Land Acquisition Officer is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-2 with this report. It is relevant to mention that in course of deliberation a statement signed by Sri A.K. Singh, Land Acquisition Judge, Bokaro has been produced to Director (Project), Land & Rehabilitation for perusal of committee. It is relevant to mention that in course of deliberation a statement signed by Sri A.K. Singh, Land Acquisition Judge, Bokaro has been produced to Director (Project), Land & Rehabilitation for perusal of committee. From perusal of aforesaid statement it appears that at present 10 cases under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act are pending before the Land Acquisition Judge, Bokaro. The photo copy of the statement is issued under the signature of Sri A.K. Singh, Land Acquisition Judge, Bokaro dated 26.9.2006 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-3. During the deliberation, Director (Project) Land & Rehabilitation had stated that in the aforesaid cases pending before the Land Acquisition Judge, Bokaro approximately about Rs. 96,30,756/- may be required to be paid presently to different petitioners, if the cases are decided in their favour. It is further pointed out that if the cases pending before the Land Acquisition Judge, Bokaro is decided then in all probability other villagers who arc covered by the Land Acquisition Notification in the aforesaid 10 cases may file applications under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act before the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bokaro for enhancing the compensation amount and in that cases the liability to pay compensation may further increase. During the deliberation a list of altogether 46 first appeals had been produced by Special Land Acquisition Officer which shows that at present 46 first appeals are pending in the Honble High Court in relation to Land Acquisition cases of Bokaro Steel Plant. The photostat copy of aforesaid list furnished by Land Acquisition Officer, Bokaro is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure4 to this report. It is not out of place to mention that during the deliberation it has been brought to the notice of committee that as per the Direction of the Honble Supreme Court Rs. 8,87,50,984.80 had been deposited by the State Government in the Court against the various decreetal amount. The aforesaid amount is still to be reimbursed by the Bokaro Steel Plant. It is further brought to the notice that Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bokaro had already disposed 104 cases under Section 28A in which an award of Rs. 1,32,49,632/- have been passed, out of which the State Government had deposited Rs. 42,49,632/- and the rest amount i.e. Rs. 90.00,000/- is still required to be paid to the different land owners. It is further brought to the notice that Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bokaro had already disposed 104 cases under Section 28A in which an award of Rs. 1,32,49,632/- have been passed, out of which the State Government had deposited Rs. 42,49,632/- and the rest amount i.e. Rs. 90.00,000/- is still required to be paid to the different land owners. Thus, from perusal of annexure 2 and also after considering the money deposited by the State Government in the Court and also taking into account that Rs. 90,00,000/- is required to be paid to different Land owners against the award passed by Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bokaro under Section 28A, the committee comes to the conclusion that at present approximately Rs. 65,12,10,415/- is the total liability as against the aforesaid cases. However it is made clear that the committee at present had not taken into account while assessing aforesaid amount the possibility of filing of different applications under Section 28A if the aforesaid 10 cases pending before Land Acquisition Judge, Bokaro ultimately decided in favour of land owners. It is relevant to mention that on 25.11.2006 as per the decision of the committee the views of Managing Directors SAIL/Bokaro Steel Plant has been solicited as to whether SAIL/Bokaro Steel Plant is ready to pay the aforesaid tentative compensation amount or not. The letter addressed to Managing Director SAIL/Bokaro Steel Plant dated 25.11.2006 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure5. In response to aforesaid letter the Managing Director SAIL/Bokaro Steel Plant vide his letter No. MD/5693 dated 27.11.2006 has informed the committee that SAIL/Bokaro Steel Plant is ready/agree to pay the entire above liability subject to the conditions mentioned in the said letter. The original letter of Managing Director SAIL/Bokaro Steel Plant dated 27.11.2006 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure6 with this report. It is worth to mention that for Bokaro Steel Plant some lands had been acquired at Bhawnathpur, Garhwa for captive mines. During the deliberation two letters have been produced by Assistant General Manager (Personnel), Bokaro Steel Plant before the committee written by Sri Akhileswar Prasad, Govt. Pleader, Daltonganj and Munni Tiwari, Govt. Pleader, Garhwa addressed to Director (Project) Land and Rehabilitation, Bokaro respectively and the perusal of the same shows that no case relating to land acquisition of Bokaro Steel Plant as pending either in civil Court, Daltonganj or Civil Court, Garhwa. Pleader, Daltonganj and Munni Tiwari, Govt. Pleader, Garhwa addressed to Director (Project) Land and Rehabilitation, Bokaro respectively and the perusal of the same shows that no case relating to land acquisition of Bokaro Steel Plant as pending either in civil Court, Daltonganj or Civil Court, Garhwa. The photo copy of aforesaid letters is annexed herewith and marked as annexure7 series. Before parting with this report the committee acknowledges the full cooperation rendered by Director (Project) Land and Rehabilitation and Special Land Acquisition Officer as well as all their office staff. The Committee also appreciate the co-operation given by Bokaro Steel Plant in providing infras-ture and others facilities to the committee as well as Special Land Acquisition Officer for compiling the details of ihe various cases. This report is being submitted before the Honble High Court for kind consideration. The meeting ended with thanks. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- (Prashant (A.B. (Mrs. Mukta Kumar) Shekhar) Sahay) Secretary, Conciliator, Director, Land Law Govt. of State Legal & Rcha- Jharkhand Service bilitation on, Authority Bokaro ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- (Rajiv Ranjan) (Sandeep (M.P. Sinha) Advocate, Tula) A.G.M. A.G.M. Jharkhand (Pers.) MDs (Project) SAIL, High Court Office SAIL BSI. SAIL, BSL. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7. After hearing the parties and after perusal of the report, this Court directed the Revenue Secretary to file affidavit. After much persuasion one affidavit was filed by the Revenue Secretary, Government of Jharkhand. For better appreciation, I would like to reproduce the entire affidavit filed by the Revenue Secretary which reads as under: 1. That I am at present working and posted as the Principal Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms, Government of Jharkhand at Ranchi and. as such I am well acquainted with the fads and circumstances of the instant case. 2. That the deponent is swearing this affidavit as per the directions of this Honble Court on the Steel Authority of India Ltd., agreeing to undertake the entire liability with regard to payment of compensation to the land looser arising out of the acquisitions made for the establishment of Bokaro Steel Plant. Bokaro and also with relation to such agreeing Steel Authority of India Ltd., (hereinafter to be referred to as the SAIL) for execution of Deed of conveyance by the State Government in favour of the SAIL (Bokaro Steel Plant). 3. Bokaro and also with relation to such agreeing Steel Authority of India Ltd., (hereinafter to be referred to as the SAIL) for execution of Deed of conveyance by the State Government in favour of the SAIL (Bokaro Steel Plant). 3. That, the deponent states and submits that the SAIL (Bokaro Steel Plant) should unequivocally agree and undertake that it would pay to the land-loosers whatsoever amount of compensation is determined for payment in the pending proceedings in any Court and also it should agree and undertake that it would pay all such compensation to the claimants, if so determined in due proceedings to be initiated in future. 4. That, the SAIL (Bokaro Steel Plant) should also agree and undertake that whatsoever amount if the State Government has so far paid in the previous proceedings to the landloosers from the State Exchequer and has not been returned or paid by the SAIL (Bokaro Steel Plant) to the State Government, the SAIL (Bokaro Steel Plant) shall also pay the entire such amount to the State Government without any preconditions(s). 5. That this way the SAIL (Bokaro Steel Plant) should undertake that the entire liability which has accrued in past proceedings and are to be determined in the pending proceedings and/or further to determined, if fresh proceedings in some future time are levied and initiated, the total liability which is fixed and determined in this regard would be that of the SAIL (Bokaro Steel Plant) and the State Government in no way would be liable to make payment of any amount whatsoever. 6. That the SAIL (Bokaro Steel Plant) should also agree that the lands, which are in occupation of the State Government for the use of local ad ministration and different offices and arms of the State Government, shall not be asked to be handed over to the SAIL (Bokaro Steel Plant) nor any compensation for those lands should be asked to be borne by the State Government. The liability of payment of compensation in respect of those lands shall also be that of the SAIL (Bokaro Steel Plant). This concession the SAIL (Bokaro Steel Plant) is required in view of the facts that approximately 3600 acres Government lands and 778 acres of forest land had been given to the SAIL (Bokaro Steel Plant) free of cost. Further whatever expansion of Govt. This concession the SAIL (Bokaro Steel Plant) is required in view of the facts that approximately 3600 acres Government lands and 778 acres of forest land had been given to the SAIL (Bokaro Steel Plant) free of cost. Further whatever expansion of Govt. offices is done in future at Bokaro it is possible only when SAIL provides lands free of cost as there is hardly any Government land left there. Therefore, SAIL shall show utmost consideration to this future demand of land for the Govt. use without asking for any monetary compensation. Further, SAIL (Bokaro Steel Plant) shall not claim any special or otherwise right or privilege over those lands under the occupation of the State Government. 7. That if SAIL (Bokaro Steel Plant) agrees to fulfill the above mentioned propositions solely at their own cost, the State Government shall have no objection/hesitation in executing a deed of conveyance in favour of the SAIL (Bokaro Steel Plant). 8. That, the State Government only wants that no financial liability in any form in any case at any point of time in respect of payment of compensation of the acquired lands should be asked to be borne or shared by the State Government. 9. That, the SAIL (Bokaro Steel Plant) should also undertake that whatsoever compensation is determined in any proceeding in favour of raiyats, the raiyats concerned will be paid their amount of compensation by the SAIL (Bokaro Steel Plant) and the raiyats shall not be subjected to prolonged litigation. This protection the SAIL (Bokaro Steel Plant) is required to provide to the raiyats so that at no point of time the State Government may be required to interfere in any such matter. The State Government does not want henceforth any interference in the management of such lands or in any matter with regard to compensation to the raiyats. 10. That, as per the report of the committee the esteemed liability with regard to pending 28A applications has been determined around Rs. The State Government does not want henceforth any interference in the management of such lands or in any matter with regard to compensation to the raiyats. 10. That, as per the report of the committee the esteemed liability with regard to pending 28A applications has been determined around Rs. 65 Crores which does not include the amount of compensation involved in 46 (forty six) First Appeals pending in the High Court, 10 (Ten) cases under Section 18 pending before the Land Acquisition Judge, Bokaro and the amount of liability to be determined in prospective future proceedings, as such by way of good gesture the SAIL (Bokaro Steel Plant) should deposit substantial money with the department for payment of raiyats and for adjustment of accounts with regard to the amount paid by the Government previously to raiyats/Land loosers. 11. That, the lands had been acquired decades ago and with the acquisitions of the land the entire lands have been handed over to the then Hindustan Steel Ltd. (HSL), now the SAIL (Bokaro Steel Plant) and accordingly Bokaro Steel Plant was established. The entire acquired lands since the time of such acquisitions are under the management and control of the SAIL (bokaro Steel Plant) and the State Government has no role in any such management and control of such acquired lands. The SAIL (Bokaro Steel Plant) now can not ask or insist the State Government to put it in possession of any particular piece of land including the so-called 824,855 acres of land given in the BSP/SA1L affidavit in view of the fact that the lands have already been put under the possession of the SAIL (Bokaro Steel Plant) or are under their deemed possession and if there has been any encroachment/illegal occupation by any one it had occurred while it was under the management and control of SAIL (Bokaro Steel Plant) and. as such, the State Government can not give any undertaking that it would put the SAIL (Bokaro Steel Plant) in possession of any such land(s) which have been occupied by local per-sons(s). However, the State Government shall provide help and assistance to the SAIL (Bokaro Steel Plant) in evicting them in due proceedings at the initiative of SAIL (Bokaro Steel Plant), but that would be only on the request of the SAIL (Bokaro Steel Plant). 12. However, the State Government shall provide help and assistance to the SAIL (Bokaro Steel Plant) in evicting them in due proceedings at the initiative of SAIL (Bokaro Steel Plant), but that would be only on the request of the SAIL (Bokaro Steel Plant). 12. That there are number of First Appeals pending in the Honble High Court filed by the State Government which appeals shall be withdrawn in due course if the SAIL (Bokaro Steel Plant) agrees and undertakes to pay to the raiyats/landloosers the liability in respect of the acquired lands and State Government is absolved from all financial liabilities in respect of payment of compensation of the acquired lands. 8. In reply to the State Governments affidavit, the respondents-Steel Authority of India Limited filed affidavit whereby they agreed to abide by all the conditions mentioned in their affidavit. Paragraphs 4 to 7 of the affidavit filed by Steel Authority of India Limited is also reproduced herein below: 4. That in response to paragraphs 2, 3, 4, 5. 8 and 9 of the affidavit of Principal Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms, Govt. of Jharkhand. Ranchi filed on 31.1.2007, the SA1L/BSP undertakes to pay the entire liability with respect to the past payment already made by the Govt, as well as with respect to the pending cases as detailed in the final report of the committee constituted by the Honble Jharkhand High Court vide order dated 12.9.2006 in F.A. Nos. 45/91 (R) and 46/91 (R). 5. It is further stated that the final report of the committee clearly indicates that the total liability of the compensation comes to around Rs. 65,12,10,415 (approx) which the SAIL/BSP is ready to pay. The committee has also indicated that it has not taken into consideration while assessing the aforesaid amount the possibilit