JUDGMENT : Sanju Panda, J. - The appellant in L.A.A. No. 84 of 2009 assails the judgment dated 18.5.2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Jagatsinghpur in Land Acquisition Case No. 161 of 1990 wherein respondent No. 2 was directed to pay compensation at the enhanced rate of Rs. 31,000/- per acre in respect of the acquired land along with additional market value at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of publication of notice u/s 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act till the date of taking over possession of the land, statutory solatium at the rate of 30% on the market value and interest at the rate of 9% per annum for the first year after acquisition and at the rate of 15% per annum for the subsequent years till the payment on the excess amount of compensation on consideration of the reference made u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and seeks for enhancement of compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,00,000/- per acre. Paradeep Phosphates Limited represented through its General Manager (P & A) has filed L.A.A. No. 63 of 2009 assailing the very same judgment dated 18.05.2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Jagatsinghpur in L.A. Case No. 161 of 1990 with a prayer to set aside the same and to award the compensation at the rate of Rs. 18,000/- per acre. 2. Since both L.A.A. Nos. 84 of 2009 and 63 of 2009 arise out of the same judgment passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Jagatsinghpur in L.A. Case No. 161 of 1990, they are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. 3. Mr. Ganeswar Rath, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Paradeep Phosphates Limited in L.A.A. No. 63 of 2009 stated that the award passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Jagatsinghpur fixing the rate of the land at Rs. 31,000/- per acre in L.A. Case No. 161 of 1990 is excessive. He further stated that this Court in the case of Paradeep Phosphates Limited v. Pramod Kumar Pradhan in F.A.O. No. 7 of 1994 arising out of L.A. Case No. 189 of 1984 has determined the market value of the land to be Rs. 18,000/-per acre in respect of Mouza-Chauliagalanda and also stated that while determining the market value in the present case i.e. at Rs. 31,000/-per acre, the learned Civil Judge (Sr. 18,000/-per acre in respect of Mouza-Chauliagalanda and also stated that while determining the market value in the present case i.e. at Rs. 31,000/-per acre, the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Jagatsinghpur has not taken into account the letter dated 1.8.2003 issued by the Govt. of Orissa, Food Supplies and Consumer Welfare Department along with the open market price of the common paddies in Jagatsinghpur market for the year 1981-82 and 1982-83 and has passed the impugned award whimsically. He further stated that the evidence of P.W.1 has also not been taken into consideration. Therefore he vehemently urged that the judgment passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Jagatsinghpur is liable to be set aside and at best the market value should be fixed at the rate of Rs. 18,000/- per acre. 4. Per contra, Mr. K.K. Jena, learned counsel appearing in L.A.A. No. 84 of 2009 vehemently urged that the contention raised by Mr. Rath, learned Senior Counsel is not in conformity with the judgment passed by this Court which has been confirmed by the apex Court in respect of the very same village. He has relied upon a judgment of the apex Court in the case of Fida Hussain and Others Vs. Moradabad Development Authority and Another. He further stated that the judgment passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Jagatsinghpur in L.A. Case No. 161 of 1990 determining the compensation at the enhanced rate of Rs. 31,000/- per acre is proper, but taking into consideration today's market index, the compensation amount should be enhanced to Rs. 1,00,000/- per acre. 5. Mr. Ashok Mohanty, learned Advocate General appearing for the State supported the judgment passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Jagatsinghpur and stated that the award so passed being just and proper needs no interference by this Court. 6. In order to appreciate the factual background of the case in hand, it is apt to mention here that Government of Orissa acquired the land vide Notification No. 76780/8 dated 6.12.1982 published in the Orissa Gazette No. 1750 dated 10.12.1982 awarding compensation to the tune of Rs. 6,91,231.70. The land oustees have accepted the compensation with objection and filed an application for claiming higher compensation, basing upon which the matter was referred to the learned Civil Judge (Sr. 6,91,231.70. The land oustees have accepted the compensation with objection and filed an application for claiming higher compensation, basing upon which the matter was referred to the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Jagatsinghpur in L.A. Case No. 161 of 1990 u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") for determination of the compensation amount in respect of the acquired land. Paradeep Phosphates Limited was impleaded as opposite party No. 2 in the said land acquisition proceeding vide order dated 20.7.1996. The reference was disposed of vide order dated 31.8.1996 and was dismissed due to default of the respondent Nos. 2 to 48 on the date fixed for hearing and accordingly reference made by the L.A. Collector was confirmed, though subsequently the reference was restored to file on consideration of the application filed by the land oustees, in exercise of power u/s 151 of CPC vide order dated 10.02.2003. When the matter stood thus, this Court stayed the proceeding vide order dated 16.3.2006 in Misc. Case No. 3202 of 2006 arising out of W.P.(C) No. 3757 of 2006. This Court while disposing of the said writ petition vacated the interim order passed vide order dated 27.4.2007 and communicated the same to the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Jagatsinghpur on 21.5.2007. Thereafter, learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Jagatsinghpur took up L.A. Case No. 161 of 1990 for fresh disposal on merits basing upon the evidence adduced by the parties. 7. The case of the land oustees in brief is that the property described in the schedule of the petition was acquired for Paradeep Phosphates Limited. The said acquired land is adjacent to Paradeep Port under Paradeep Port Trust, Railway Station, Bus Stand, Paradeep Industrial Estate, Express Highway, Paradeep College, Hospital, Schools, Police Station, Govt. Offices and business centers. There is well communication to the acquired land along with electricity and water supply facilities. The productivity of the said land is high because of the fact that the land oustees were raising double crops in a year and the said land is also fit for homestead and for construction of buildings. The compensation amount awarded in respect of standing trees and the houses is very low. Some portion of the acquired land was also being used by the land oustees for pisciculture purpose. The compensation amount awarded in respect of standing trees and the houses is very low. Some portion of the acquired land was also being used by the land oustees for pisciculture purpose. The price of the nearby lands in the adjacent villages of the acquired land being high, the compensation awarded by the L.A. Collector is inadequate in respect of the acquired land. Therefore, they claim higher compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,00,000/- per acre for the acquired lands. 8. The L.A. Collector, Jagatsinghpur has not filed any written objection. However, Paradeep Phosphates Limited has filed written statement. It is stated in the objection that the land in question was water logged and fallow with a very low yielding potentiality and as such, a huge amount has been invested for developing the acquired land for its own use. Prior to notification made by the Government to acquire the land for establishment of Paradeep Phosphates Limited, the land was also water logged and inaccessible though it was recorded as agricultural land and the acquired land is a distance of more than 15 k.m. away from the Paradeep Port. By the time it was acquired, no Railway Station or Railway line was there and no path was available to reach the bus stand. There is no college, hospital and industrial estate in or around the acquired land. Refuting the contentions raised by the land oustees, L.A. Collector taking into account all the relevant materials prescribed in the statute has fixed the compensation amount in respect of the acquired land. He specifically urged that many of the respondents also have no interest to prosecute the reference case and as such reference is not maintainable for adjudication in the eye of law and seeks for disposal of the same and confirmation of the award made by the L.A. Collector. 9. In order to substantiate the claim of the land oustees they have examined 10 witnesses and relied upon documents marked as Exts. 1 to 9 whereas the L.A. Collector examined none and relied upon two documents marked as Exts. A-1 and B-1 and Paradeep Phosphates Limited examined two witness as O.P.Ws. 1 and 2 and relied on documentary evidence marked as Ext. A to K/1. 10. At the outset, Mr. 1 to 9 whereas the L.A. Collector examined none and relied upon two documents marked as Exts. A-1 and B-1 and Paradeep Phosphates Limited examined two witness as O.P.Ws. 1 and 2 and relied on documentary evidence marked as Ext. A to K/1. 10. At the outset, Mr. Ganeswar Rath, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Paradeep Phosphates Limited, raised question of maintainability and divisibility of decree stating that one Rodani Bewa and Laxmi Bewa at serial Nos. 14 and 17 respectively in L.A. Case No. 161 of 1990 died during pendency of the reference u/s 18 of the Act and their names are to be deleted without substituting their legal heirs and therefore the proceeding has abated. In support of his contention he has relied upon a decision in the case of State of Haryana v. Trilok Chand and others, (2002) 10 SCC 374. 11. Mr. K.K. Jena, learned counsel for the land oustees has vehemently urged that it is a reference case as per Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. Therefore, the referral court is to answer the reference and the reference case would not be abated or dismissed. In support of his contention he has relied upon the judgment reported in Khazan Singh Vs. Union of India, wherein the apex Court has observed that the reference made by the L.A. Collector u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 cannot be dismissed for default. The provision of Sections 18, 20 and 26 made it clear that the civil court has to pass an award in answer to the reference made by the L.A. Collector u/s 18 of the Act. If any party to whom notice has been served by the civil court did not participate in the inquiry, it would only be at his risk because an award would be passed perhaps to the detriment of the concerned party but non-participation of any party would not confer jurisdiction on the civil court to dismiss the reference for default. 12. The judgment cited by Mr. Ganeswar Rath, learned Senior Counsel in State of Haryana (Supra) does not disclose clearly the nature of award but the said case relates to abetment of appeal. 12. The judgment cited by Mr. Ganeswar Rath, learned Senior Counsel in State of Haryana (Supra) does not disclose clearly the nature of award but the said case relates to abetment of appeal. In our considered view the decision of the apex Court in State of Haryana (supra) is not applicable to the case in hand because the L.A. Collector being the competent authority having passed the award and compensation amount having already been disbursed to the land oustees, the referral court is only to consider the reference made u/s 18 of the Act for enhancement of the compensation amount. Therefore, the contention raised that the reference made u/s 18 of the Act will abate, cannot be sustainable and we hold that the proceeding is maintainable. 13. Mr. K.K. Jena, learned counsel brought to our notice a decision of the apex Court in case of Fida Hussain (supra) and stated to dispose of both the appeals in the light of the said decision. Apart from the above, he has cited a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Paradeep Phosphates Limited v. Land Acquisition Collector and others disposed of on 26.6.2000 in F.A.O. Nos. 308 to 332 of 1998 arising out of L.A. Case Nos. 339, 341, 345, 330, 329, 336, 338, 327, 337, 348, 349, 346, 344, 340, 350, 334, 343, 328, 351, 331, 332, 335, 342 and 347 of 1995. In the aforesaid case, this Court, considering all the materials on record, has already fixed the market value of acquired land at Rs. 31,000/- per acre, which has been followed by the referral court while answering the reference fixing the market value at the same rate, in the same village and in the same locality with same facilities of the very same company i.e. Paradeep Phosphates Limited. The said decision of the Division Bench in Paradeep Phosphates Limited mentioned (supra) was assailed before the apex Court in SLP (C) No. 18408-18433 of 2000 which has also been dismissed, thereby the award passed by the Division Bench has been confirmed. As such, we are not inclined to interfere with the appeal filed by the Paradeep Phosphates Limited in L.A.A. No. 63 of 2009. 14. By dismissal of the SLP by the apex Court, the judgment passed by this Court in Paradeep Phosphates Limited (supra) has reached its finality. As such, we are not inclined to interfere with the appeal filed by the Paradeep Phosphates Limited in L.A.A. No. 63 of 2009. 14. By dismissal of the SLP by the apex Court, the judgment passed by this Court in Paradeep Phosphates Limited (supra) has reached its finality. In Fida Hussain (supra), the decision is based on specific facts and does not operate as a precedent for future cases, only the principles of law that emanates from the judgment, which aided in reaching a conclusion of the problem, are binding precedents within the meaning of Article 141. However, if the question of law before the court is same as in the previous case, the judgment of the court in the former case would be binding on the latter, for the reason that the question of law before the court is already settled. In other words, if the court determines a certain issue on a certain set of facts, then, that issue stands determined for any other matter on the same set of facts. Applying the said principles, the apex Court has confirmed the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Paradeep Phosphates Limited (supra) fixing the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 31,000/- per acre, which has reached finality. Therefore this Court has no justifiable reason to interfere with the same, thereby we confirm the judgment passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Jagatsinghpur in L.A. Case No. 161 of 1990. 15. Mr. Ganeswar Rath, learned Senior Counsel filed two Misc. Cases under Order-41, Rule-27 of the CPC to accept the documents as additional evidence and to mark as Exhibits and to consider the same for adjudication of the dispute. 16. We have considered the Misc. Cases and the documents annexed thereto to be treated as additional evidence. It is found that reference has been made to the proceedings of the meeting dated 11.2.2010 on payment of compensation amount to the land losers of Paradip Phosphates Limited project where the Paradip Phosphates Limited authorities have agreed to pay additional compensation to the land losers @ Rs. 21,000/- per acre including compensation already paid with solatium and 9% interest for the first year and 13% interest for the subsequent years on the differential amount uniformly for all the three villages, namely, Udayabat, Sandhakud and Chauliapalanda. 21,000/- per acre including compensation already paid with solatium and 9% interest for the first year and 13% interest for the subsequent years on the differential amount uniformly for all the three villages, namely, Udayabat, Sandhakud and Chauliapalanda. While arriving at such decision, the judgment of this Court passed in Paradeep Phosphates Limited (supra), which has been confirmed in SLP by the apex Court has not been taken into consideration and more so, the same has been suppressed before the land oustees and finally the decision arrived at amounts to suppression of facts because the decision rendered by this Court in Paradeep Phosphates Limited (supra), having reached in its finality by dismissing the appeal by the apex Court, the same should be given effect to with letter and spirit. The apex Court in K.R. Srinivas Vs. R.M. Premchand and Others, held that when a person approaches a Court of Equity in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 /227 of the Constitution, he should approach the Court not only with clean hands but also with clean mind, clean heart and clean objective. Thus, who seeks equity must do equity. The legal maxim "Jure Naturae Aequum Est Neminem cum Alterius Detrimento Et Injuria Fieri Locupletiorem" means that it is a law of nature that one should not be enriched by the loss or injury to another. 17. In view of such position, the judgment of the apex Court having not been brought to the notice of the land oustees that the position has already been settled and the same having amounted to suppression of fact, the miscellaneous applications filed for consideration of additional evidence are hereby rejected due to suppression of fact. 18. Apart from the above, this is a land acquisition matter of the year 1982 and parties are awaiting to get their legitimate dues. Lingering of the proceeding for any non-justifiable reason, would grossly prejudice them. Further, once the dispute between the same parties has been settled by the apex Court in respect of the very same village arising out of the very same notification, any further delay would also ultimately affect the company to pay interest for the delayed period. Therefore, we are of the opinion that since the matter has been settled by the apex Court in Paradeep Phosphates Limited (supra), we direct that the judgment rendered by the Civil Judge (Sr. Therefore, we are of the opinion that since the matter has been settled by the apex Court in Paradeep Phosphates Limited (supra), we direct that the judgment rendered by the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Jagatsinghpur in L.A. Case No. 161 of 1990 be implemented forthwith. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, L.A.A. Case Nos. 84 2009 and 63 of 2009 are hereby disposed of with the above observation and direction. B.R. Sarangi, J. I agree. Final Result : Disposed Off