JUDGMENT : By Court: All these first appeals have been preferred against a common judgment dated 29th September, 2012 passed by learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Garhwa whereby the award in the respective L.A. Reference cases have been prepared in favour of the respective respondents. 2. F.A. No.237 of 2012 has arisen out of L.A. Case No.166/78 of 1979, F.A. No.238 of 2012 has arisen out of L.A. Case No.159/72 of 1979, F.A. No.239 of 2012 has arisen out of L.A. Case No.163/76 of 1979, F.A. No.240 of 2012 has arisen out of L.A. Case No.164/76 of 1979, F.A. No.241 of 2012 has arisen out of L.A. Case No.162/75 of 1979, F.A. No.242 of 2012 has arisen out of L.A. Case No.64/147 of 1979 and F.A. No.243 of 2012 has arisen out of L.A. Case No.65/148 of 1979. 3. The facts, in brief, is that all the L.A. Reference cases have been referred by the Land Acquisition Officer, Bihar State Agriculture Marketing Board, Patna. The references have been made in connection with a single Notification No. D.L.A. 32/77, 1713(R) dated 01.06.1977 published at Page 6667 Part II of the District Gazette dated 16.06.1977 whereby Government of Bihar (now Jharkhand) have acquired 22.71 acres of land in one compact bloc in village Unchari (Mohalla Garhwa Town) District Palamu (Now Garhwa) for the purpose of construction of Agricultural Market Yard at Garhwa and for that purpose L.A. Case No.27/V of 1977 arose. All the aforementioned cases have arisen on the basis of applications filed by the land owners whose lands have been acquired by the Government of Bihar (now Jharkhand). Since all the aforementioned cases have arisen on the basis of references made by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bihar Marketing Board, Patna in connection with L.A. Case No.27/V of 1977 and nature of the lands acquired are same and grounds taken against inadequate compensation are also similar in all the cases, therefore, it would be just and proper as well as convenient to dispose of all the cases referred to above together by a common order. L.A. Case No.166/78 of 1979 is in connection with the acquisition of land measuring an area 0.75 acres of land covered under Plot No.541 of Khata No.14 of Village Unchari Thana No.241, Garhwa, District Palamu (now Jharkhand) and rate of compensation to the land owner has been awarded @ Rs.12, 675/per acre and total amount of compensation awarded to the land owner under Section 12 of the L.A. Act finds mentioned in the reference is Rs. 11,65645 paise. In L.A. Case No.159/72 of 1979 land measuring 2.70 acre covered within Plot No. 543, 555 and 556 under Khata No.62 and 02 of Village Unchari, Thana Garhwa No.241 District Palamu (now Garhwa) of Sheikh Ali Hassan s/o Sheikh Natwar have been acquired and rate of compensation to the land owner has been awarded @ Rs.12,675/per acre and total amount of compensation awarded to the land owner under Section 12 of the Act finds mentioned in the reference is Rs.40,43645 paise. In L.A. Case No.163/76 of 1979 land measuring 0.59 acre covered within Plot No. 578, 579 and 580 under Khata No. 20 and 25 of Ali Hassan Mian @ Pahalwan Mian son of Jangi Mian have been acquired and @ rate of Rs. 12,675/per acre and total compensation awarded under Section 12 of the L.A. Act is Rs. 8,728=99 paise. In L.A. Case No. 164/76 of 1979 land measuring an area 0.89 acre covered in Plot No. 557 under Khata No. 6 of Village Unchari, Thana Garhwa No. 241, District Palamu(Now Garhwa) of Bigan Mian and Yar Mohammad Son of Jakir Ali have been acquired @ Rs. 12675/per acre and total amount of compensation awarded to the land owners under Section 12 of the Act finds mentioned in the reference is Rs. 13,16745 paise. In L.A. Case No. 162/75, land measuring an area 1.27 acre covered in Plot No. 558, 559, 560 and 564 under Khata No. 47 of village Unchari Thana No. 241, Garhwa, District Palamu ( Now Garhwa) Jharkhand of Rejendra Prasad Keshri, Surendra Prasad Keshri and Devendra Kumar all sons of Gopal Prasad Keshri have been acquired and rate of compensation to the land owners has been awarded @ Rs. 12,675/per acre and total amount of compensation awarded to the land owners under Section 12 of the L.A. Act finds mentioned in the reference is Rs. 18,789=52 paise. 12,675/per acre and total amount of compensation awarded to the land owners under Section 12 of the L.A. Act finds mentioned in the reference is Rs. 18,789=52 paise. In L.A. Case No. 64/147 of 1979 land measuring 2.51 acre covered in Plot No. 554 under Khata No. 22 of village Unchari, Thana Garhwa No. 241, District Palamu (Now Garhwa) of Dr. Maharaja Jaiswal have been acquired and rate of compensation to the land owner has been awarded @ Rs. 12,675/per acre and total amount of compensation awarded to the land owner under Section 12 of the L.A. Act finds mentioned in the reference is Rs. 37,275/. In L.A. Case No. 65/148 of 1979 land measuring 2.645 acre covered in Plot No. 539, 656 and 663 under Khata No. 22 of village Unchari, Thana Garhwa No. 241, District Palamu (Now Garhwa) of Dr. Rajendra Lal Jaiswal Son of Mewa Lal Jaiswal have been acquired and rate of compensation to the land owner has been awarded @ Rs. 16,900/and @ Rs. 12,675/per acre. 4. Being dissatisfied with the impugned order of compensation and award, the land owners/respondents filed separate petitions by way of protest before the Land Acquisition Officer contending therein that amount of compensation awarded against the acquisition of land is inadequate and the market value of the lands acquired has been determined without considering location, site, situation and potentiality of the lands. The land owners, in support of their claim, had adduced documents such as sale deeds executed for the similar type of land falling within nearby area. The potentiality of the land acquired was also brought to the notice. The land owners have also claimed 20% of the market value of the lands acquired because they became landless and agriculture was the source of their income. Since they have been deprived of their livelihood, the loss which they had sustained was not assessed, the interest and other statutory benefits have also been claimed. 5. In each of the L.A. Reference cases the respondent landlords have claimed for the compensation against the acquisition of their land on the basis of location and potentiality of their land. The Land Acquisition Officer, after receiving protest petitions from the landlords, referred the matter to the Sub-Judge, Land Acquisition to decide the issue. 6. 5. In each of the L.A. Reference cases the respondent landlords have claimed for the compensation against the acquisition of their land on the basis of location and potentiality of their land. The Land Acquisition Officer, after receiving protest petitions from the landlords, referred the matter to the Sub-Judge, Land Acquisition to decide the issue. 6. On the other hand, the State though contested the claim raised by the landlords but failed to adduce evidence and documents to justify the value of land decided to be paid to the landlords against acquisition of the land. It is disclosed that the lands were acquired for the purpose of constructing agricultural marketing yard at Garhwa. The learned Sub-Judge framed issues and recorded evidences adduced by both sides. The documents produced by the parties have been proved and marked exhibits, as per para6 of the impugned judgment. 7. At the conclusion of the trial the learned Sub-Judge has held that the value of land, decided by Land Acquisition Officer, was inadequate and the landlords are entitled to receive Rs. 1000/- per decimal for the lands which are adjacent to Garhwa Manjhiawn P.W.D. road within a distance of 200 feet and Rs.800/per decimal for rest of the land. The learned Sub-Judge has also held that the respondent landlords are also entitled for all other statutory benefits as upheld by the Hon'ble Patna High Court, Ranchi Bench in the judgment dated 14.10.1999, exhibit2 and hence this appeal by the Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee, Garhwa. 8. In course of arguments, the appellants have raised following points: (i) Objection, as required under Section 18 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act was not raised by the respondents before the Collector and the term “Collector” has been defined under Section 3(c) which indicates that requirement of Section 18 (2) was not fulfilled and the learned Sub-Judge has committed error by relying on the objections raised by the respondent landlords. On this score alone the references made to the learned Sub-Judge ought to have been dismissed. (ii) The aforementioned L.A. Reference cases stood dismissed for default in the month of March, 1981 and by order dated 23rd September, 2004 the cases were restored to its original file and then proceeded further. In the circumstances, the appellant should not be held liable to pay interest for the said period. (ii) The aforementioned L.A. Reference cases stood dismissed for default in the month of March, 1981 and by order dated 23rd September, 2004 the cases were restored to its original file and then proceeded further. In the circumstances, the appellant should not be held liable to pay interest for the said period. (iii) The State has not taken interest to contest the references made to the learned Sub-Judge and they did not adduce cogent evidences in support of the value of lands decided by Land Acquisition Officer. It is true that the lands were acquired for construction of agricultural produce market yard at Garhwa but the Agricultural Produce Market Committee was not arrayed as party. The Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee has appeared to contest the issue only in the year 2012. (iv) The learned Sub-Judge, while deciding the issues in favour of the respondents mainly relied on Exhibit2 i.e. certified copy of the judgment of Hon'ble Patna High Court, Ranchi Bench dated 14.10.1999 passed in connection with Appeal No.146 of 1998(R), Anil Kumar Gupta Vrs. State of Bihar and exhibit 2/1 certified copy of order passed in L.A. Reference Case No.62 of 1979, exhibit 2/2 certified copy of the order passed by the Court of learned Sub-Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj and the order dated 11.12.1987 passed in L.A. Reference Case No.161 of 1979. It is made clear that the appellant was not arrayed as party in that case and no opportunity was given to contest the same and therefore, relying on those documents for deciding the issues involved in these L.A. Reference cases is unwarranted and not tenable. (v) Last but not least, the findings of the learned Sub-Judge in aforementioned L.A. Reference Cases are highly erroneous, value of land has been decided on the higher side without considering need of the people for which the lands were acquired. Therefore, considering all these grounds, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/ landlords have vehemently opposed the arguments and submitted that the respondents are not liable for dismissal of aforementioned cases for non-prosecution. As a matter of fact, the learned Sub-Judge was given power to decide Land Acquisition Cases but it was not known to the respondents/applicants. They were not served with any notice to appear and produce their evidence in those cases. As a matter of fact, the learned Sub-Judge was given power to decide Land Acquisition Cases but it was not known to the respondents/applicants. They were not served with any notice to appear and produce their evidence in those cases. Suddenly they could learn about the dismissal of case for non-prosecution and immediately they preferred civil revision before Hon'ble Patna High Court, Ranchi Bench vide Civil Revision No.392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397 and 398 of 1983(R) and got favourable order on 27.09.1983 itself. The Civil Revision Applications, preferred by the respondents/applicants was allowed and all the reference cases were directed to be restored to its original file but the aforesaid order passed by the Hon'ble Court in Civil Revisions was not incorporated in the case record in time and for that the respondents shall not suffer. It is true that learned Sub-Judge had taken note of aforesaid order dated 27.09.1983 passed in those Civil Revisions only on 23rd September, 2004 and passed an order for restoration of those cases and then the matter proceeded ahead. The respondents cannot be put to loss due to delay occurred in restoration of those L.A. Reference cases. 10. The respondent landlords have made protest within time stating grounds therein before the Land Acquisition Officer and on that basis references were made to the Special Judge, L.A. for deciding the issues. Only because the respondents have raised their grievances and made protest before the Land Acquisition Officer instead of raising it before the Collector, the protest made by them cannot be rejected for want of strict compliance of Section 18(2). The respondents were deprived from their livelihood after acquisition of the land and it is not expected from such poor villagers that they would know the correct application of law. It is further pointed out that the appellants or the State have failed to bring on record that notice required under Section 12(2) was duly served upon the respondents. The objection raised under Section 18(2) can be considered in a broader sense and the issues came to an end as soon as the objection raised by the respondents were referred to the Sub-Judge for determining the issues. 11. The objection raised under Section 18(2) can be considered in a broader sense and the issues came to an end as soon as the objection raised by the respondents were referred to the Sub-Judge for determining the issues. 11. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents has further submitted that Anil Kumar Gupta was a party to L.A. Reference Case No.161 of 1979 and the lands belonging to said Anil Kumar Gupta was also acquired by the same notification by which the lands of present respondents were acquired. Said Anil Kumar Gupta was not satisfied with the award passed in his favour in L.A. Reference Case No.161 of 1979 and hence he had preferred appeal before the Hon'ble Patna High Court, Ranchi Bench vide Appeal No.146 of 1988(R). The said appeal was decided on 14.10.1999 and the value of land decided by learned Sub-Judge was upheld but other benefits were provided to said Anil Kumar Gupta and the judgment passed in Appeal No. 146 of 1988(R) is Exhibit2 on the basis of which learned Sub-Judge has decided the value of land. The issue that the appellant was not given opportunity to contest the reference cases and therefore, Exhibit2 judgment of Hon'ble Patna High Court, Ranchi Bench is not binding upon him, was raised by filing Civil Review No.32 of 2004 before the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi but the appellant did not get favourable order except the concluding line of paragraph9 of the judgment, in which the interest pendente lite was directed to be paid twice, was deleted. The award passed in favour of said Anil Kumar Gupta has been satisfied and therefore, the appellant cannot raise same issue in the present appeal. In view of above, there is no merit in these appeals and the same are liable to be dismissed. 12. Having heard the parties and after going through the case records and the impugned judgment which consist of detail discussion on the issues involved, it appears that the learned Sub-Judge has taken all pain before coming to the conclusion. It is not that the learned Sub-Judge has simply relied on Exhibit2 for deciding the value of land rather he has considered other documents brought before him. The sale deeds for the similar type of land falling within the same area were taken into consideration to decide the value of land acquired. It is not that the learned Sub-Judge has simply relied on Exhibit2 for deciding the value of land rather he has considered other documents brought before him. The sale deeds for the similar type of land falling within the same area were taken into consideration to decide the value of land acquired. It is made clear that land belonging to said Anil Kumar Gupta was also acquired by the same notification and on the basis of objection raised by him, L.A. Reference Case No.161 of 1979 was registered for adjudication. Learned Sub-Judge has decided the value of land falling at the roadside at the rate of Rs.1000/per decimal and the lands which were falling at some distance from the road at Rs.800/per decimal and the findings of learned Sub-Judge was upheld by the Hon'ble Patna High Court, Ranchi Bench in Appeal No.146 of 1988(R). The appellant had filed Civil Review No.32 of 2004 before this Hon'ble Court and succeeded to get only benefit that last sentence of para9 of the judgment dated 14.10.1999 passed in Appeal No.146 of 1988 (R) was directed to be deleted as it was a repeatation in respect of interest to be paid to the appellant Anil Kumar Gupta. The order passed in Civil Review No.32 of 2004 and judgment Exhibit2 have reached to its finality because the appellant has failed to bring any order contrary to those judgments. The case of the respondents is squarely covered by the judgment passed in Original Appeal No.146/88(R). Considering the materials on record, I do not find any merit in these appeals and the same are dismissed and the judgment and award passed in aforementioned L.A. Reference Cases are hereby upheld. 13. In the result, all the aforementioned appeals are hereby dismissed. Accordingly, separate award is directed to be prepared in each cases.