JUDGMENT : 1. The present writ petition has been filed for setting aside the judgment dated 19th August, 2005 passed by the learned Sub Judge-II, Hazaribagh in Land Ref. Case Nos.568 & 569 of 1992 and also for quashing the award made in pursuance thereof under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act'). It has further been prayed for issuance of a direction upon the learned court below to pass a fresh order/judgment after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner for whom the land was acquired. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is a Government Company within the meaning of Section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956. The lands, pertaining to Khata No.110, Plot No.781, measuring 2.97 acres; and Khata No.97, Plot Nos.815, 822, 824, 827 and 835, measuring 6.94 acres, situated at village Sondiha were acquired by the State Government for the use and purpose of the Central Coalfields Limited (the petitioner herein). The Land Acquisition Officer notified the proceeding under Section 4 of the Act and it was lastly published in local gazette of Hazaribagh on 1st February, 1989. Thereafter, the acquisition proceeding started and the Collector at his own level assessed the market value of the said land at Rs.74,250/- and Rs.1,73,500/-, respectively. The said awarded amount was deposited by the petitioner in the office of the District Land Acquisition Officer, Hazaribagh for payment to the land losers/awardees. Since the awardees were not satisfied with the market rate so determined, they filed objections, claiming to enhance compensation besides solatium and other statutory benefits. The said objections were referred by the Collector under Section 18 of the Act before the learned Court below for re-fixation of the compensation amount in accordance with law, which were registered as Land Reference Case Nos.568 & 569 of 1992. Thereafter, notices were issued to the awardees and the State Government. Learned Government Pleader accepted the notice on behalf of the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh. However, no notice was issued to the petitioner nor it was impleaded as a party in the said proceeding, though the land was acquired for the petitioner and the burden of payment of compensation was also on the petitioner. Learned Government Pleader accepted the notice on behalf of the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh. However, no notice was issued to the petitioner nor it was impleaded as a party in the said proceeding, though the land was acquired for the petitioner and the burden of payment of compensation was also on the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide judgment dated 19th August, 2005 the learned court below after hearing the claimants/awardees and the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh enhanced and fixed the market value of the acquired land in Land Ref. Case Nos.568 & 569 of 1992 to Rs.2,520/- per decimal besides the statutory benefits of solatium, interest etc., as contained under the provisions of the Act. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner was not at all aware of the judgment dated 19th August, 2005. The petitioner neither received any notice nor any information was given to it. Thereafter, in pursuance of the said judgment dated 19th August, 2005, separate awards were prepared and published. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in a similar writ petition filed by the petitioner, being W.P.(C) No.3418 of 2006, a Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 24th June, 2010 allowed the writ petition of the petitioner, primarily for the reason that prior to passing of the impugned judgment and award, enhancing the compensation, the petitioner was not impleaded as party nor was given any notice in the land acquisition reference case. In the said case, this Court, relying upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Neelagangabai & Anr. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors., reported in AIR 1990 SC 1321 , has held as under:- “Admittedly the land was acquired for the purpose of the respondent-Corporation and the burden of payment of the compensation is on the Corporation. In this background the High Court has held that it was mandatory for the court of reference to have caused a notice served on the respondent-Corporation before proceeding to determine the compensation claim. Since no notice was given to the respondent-Corporation and it was thus deprived of an opportunity to place its case before the court, the judgment rendered in the reference case was illegal and not binding on the Corporation. We are in agreement with this view. Section 20 of the Land Acquisition Act as applicable to the State of Karnataka reads as follows:- 20. We are in agreement with this view. Section 20 of the Land Acquisition Act as applicable to the State of Karnataka reads as follows:- 20. Service of notice.- The court shall thereupon cause a notice, specifying the day on which the court will proceed to determine the reference and directing their appearance before the Court on that day, to be served on the following persons, namely:- (a) the Deputy Commissioner; (b) all persons interested in the reference; and (c) if the acquisition is not made for Government, the person or authority for whom it is made. In view of the clear language used in clause (c) of Section 20, mentioned above, there cannot be any doubt that the respondent-Corporation was entitled to be heard before the reference could be determined. The High Court has also relied upon the decision in Himalayan Tiles and Marbles (P) Ltd. V. Francis Victor Coutinho (dead) by Lrs. (1980)3 SCR 235 : ( AIR 1980 SC 1118 ), wherein the expression “person interested” was interpreted liberally so as to include an authority like the Corporation in the present case, but in view of the further provision specifically mentioning in clause (c) the authority for whom the acquisition is made it is not necessary to interpret clause (b) of Section 20 in the present appeal. We accordingly confirm the direction of the High Court as contained in the impugned judgment that the Principal Civil Judge, Hubli, should re-open the proceedings in the L.A. Case No.64 of 1979 and decide the matter afresh after giving the Corporation a chance to lead its evidence on the question of valuation. Since the matter is an old one, the respondent-Corporation is hereby directed to appear in the said case within 3 weeks from today without waiting for any further notice. The appeal is dismissed with costs.” 4. Accordingly, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned judgment and award of the learned court below may be set aside and the matter may be remanded to the learned court below to decide the land acquisition reference case afresh after providing the petitioner an opportunity to lead evidence on the question of valuation of the lands. 5. Accordingly, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned judgment and award of the learned court below may be set aside and the matter may be remanded to the learned court below to decide the land acquisition reference case afresh after providing the petitioner an opportunity to lead evidence on the question of valuation of the lands. 5. Though the Respondent Nos.1, 2 & 3 (state respondents) have filed counter affidavit, yet the fact that the petitioner was not given any opportunity of hearing in Land Reference Case Nos.568 & 569 of 1992 has not been denied. Learned counsel for the Respondent Nos.4 to 42 (private respondents) submits that admittedly the petitioner was neither a party nor it was given any opportunity to lead evidence in the said land references cases, however, if the matter is remanded to the learned court below, a time frame may be fixed considering the fact that the present land reference cases are quite old. 6. It is an admitted position that the petitioner was not made a party in Land Reference Case Nos.568 & 569 of 1992 and the issue involved in the present writ petition is covered by the judgment rendered by this Court vide judgment dated 24th June, 2010 in W.P.(C) No.3418 of 2006. Consequently, the impugned judgment dated 19th August, 2005 passed in Land Reference Case Nos.568 & 569 of 1992 and award made pursuant thereto are hereby set aside. The matter is remanded back to the learned court below to decide the matter afresh after giving the petitioner an opportunity to lead its evidence on the question of valuation of the land. 7. However, considering the fact that the matter is an old one, learned court below is directed to dispose of the said land reference cases as early as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 8. The writ petition is allowed with the aforesaid directions and observations. 9. I.A. No.3522 of 2007 also stands disposed of.