Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 769 (GAU)

Liandinga v. District Collector

2020-11-19

NELSON SAILO

body2020
JUDGMENT : Nelson Sailo, J. 1. Since the issues involved in all the three (3) cases are similar, identical and are connected to Award No. 5/2012, they are taken up together and disposed of by this common judgment and order. 2. Heard Mr. L.H. Lianhrima, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. Ruth Lalruatfeli for the appellants in L.A. Appeal No. 3/2019. Also heard Mr. A.R. Malhotra, learned counsel for the appellants in L.A. Appeal No. 4/2019 and L.A. Appeal No. 5/2019. I have also heard Mr. Ali Hussain, learned Standing counsel, N.F. Railway, who appears for the respondent No. 2 in all the three cases and similarly, Mr. C. Zoramchhana, learned Additional Advocate General, who also appears for the respondent No. 1 in all the three cases. 3. The appellants in L.A. Appeal No. 3/2019 have preferred their appeal against the Judgment & Order dated 27.05.2019, passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Aizawl in L.A. Case No. 34/2013 dismissing the case of the appellants. 4. The case of the appellants in brief is that being dissatisfied with Award No. 5/2012, which was pronounced for compensating land owners for acquisition of their land for construction of New Railway Line from Bairabi to Sairang, they approached the District Collector, Aizawl by filing a reference application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (L.A. Act). The District Collector accordingly forwarded the reference application to the District Judge, Aizawl on 24.07.2013 for consideration and adjudication as per law. By the said reference application, the appellants claimed for payment of compensation towards the value of their land @ Rs. 60 per sq.ft., compensation for crop damages, solatium @ 30% of the award and interest as per law. The reference application was taken up by the Additional District Judge-I, Aizawl and vide Judgment & Order dated 07.08.2014, the Court directed the District Collector to make a Supplementary Award by including the value of the land of the reference applicants and calculating the same @ Rs. 60 per sq.ft. alongwith 30% solatium and 12% interest as per the L.A. Act, within a period of 2 (two) months from the date of the award. 5. The N.F. Railway, being aggrieved filed an appeal before this Court, which was registered as RFA No. 30/2014. The appellants also filed their cross objection, which was registered and numbered as CO No. 4/2015. alongwith 30% solatium and 12% interest as per the L.A. Act, within a period of 2 (two) months from the date of the award. 5. The N.F. Railway, being aggrieved filed an appeal before this Court, which was registered as RFA No. 30/2014. The appellants also filed their cross objection, which was registered and numbered as CO No. 4/2015. Both the appeal and the cross objection came to be disposed of vide Judgment & Order dated 04.02.2016, by remanding the matter back to the Reference Court with a direction to take evidence with regard to the land covered by House Pass, Periodic Patta, VC Pass and Permits to ascertain whether the pass holders have a right for title of ownership over the said land. The same was directed to be done by taking additional recourse to the provisions of the land laws applicable to the State of Mizoram at the time of pronouncement of Award No. 5/2012. The Reference Court was also directed to make a finding as to whether the VC passes issued are in conformity with Section 3 of the Lushai Hills District (House Site) Act, 1953 (House Sites Act), by giving opportunities to the parties to give their evidence. 6. After the case was remanded back in the above manner, the L.A. Judge vide the impugned Judgment & Order dated 27.5.2019 dismissed the reference application. The appellants thus being aggrieved are again before this Court in appeal. 7. Mr. L.H. Lianhrima, learned Senior counsel submits that this Court, after setting aside the Judgment & Award dated 26.8.2014 passed by the Additional District Judge-I, Aizawl in L.A. Case No. 34/2013 remanded the case back to the L. A Judge for taking a fresh decision by taking into account the issues mentioned in the order. However, the Court below not only did not hear the parties but failed to discuss the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the rival parties and dismissed the reference application. He submits that the appellants are holders of Periodic Patta, House Passes and Village Council Passes in respect of their respective lands and therefore, in view of Rule 47(4) of the Mizoram (Land Revenue) Rules, 2013, the appellants are entitled to receive compensation towards their land value. The learned senior counsel further submits that the definition of the word "person interested? The learned senior counsel further submits that the definition of the word "person interested? for the purpose of Section 18 of the L.A. Act must be liberally construed, so as to embrace all persons who may be directly or indirectly interested either in the title to the land or in the quantum of compensation. In this connection, he refers to the case of Union of India Vs. Sher Singh & Ors., reported in (1993) 1 SCC 608 . 8. The learned senior counsel also submits that the Court below misinterpreted the provisions of Section 3 of the House Sites Act, so as to deprive the appellants of their rights over their respective land. He submits that this Court in other similar cases upheld the award for compensation towards land value in respect of VC Passes, House Passes and Periodic Patta, as held by the Court of Additional District Judge, Aizawl as a Reference Court. By referring to the case of U.P. State Industrial Development Corpn. Vs. Rishabh Ispat Ltd. & Ors., reported in (2007) 2 SCC 248 , the learned senior counsel submits that the Apex Court held that in a reference application under Section 18 of the L.A. Act, the Reference Court is required to consider only matters enumerated in Section 18 itself. This was so particularly when it was not a case where two claimants had claimed compensation in respect of the same land, or there was any dispute as to the apportionment. 9. The learned Senior counsel further submits that the Court below failed to appreciate the fact that the respondent N.F. Railway neither raised objection nor denied the claims made by the appellants, while filing their written statement. In this connection, he submits that the Apex Court in Jaspal Kaur Cheema & Anr. Vs. M/s. Industrial Trade Links & Ors., reported in AIR 2017 SC 3995 : (2017) 8 SCC 592 held that in terms of Order 8 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC), a defendant is required to categorically deny or dispute the statements made in the plaint and that an evasive denial would amount to an admission of an allegation made in the plaint in terms of Order 8, Rule 5 of the CPC. Therefore, failure to make specific denial amounts to an admission and under the circumstances of the present case, the learned Senior counsel submits that the N.F. Railways can be said to have admitted to the claim of the appellants and as such, the impugned judgment and order of the Court below should be set aside and quashed and the appellants be given compensation, as claimed by them in their reference application. 10. Besides the authorities already mentioned hereinabove, the learned Senior counsel has also relied upon the following authorities:- (i) Special Land Acquisition & Rehabilitation Officer, Sagar Vs. M.S. Seshagiri Rao & Anr. AIR 1968 (SC) 1045 . (ii) State of Mizoram Vs. C. Lalbiakthanga 2012 (1) GLT 53. (iii) Order dated 19.02.2013 passed by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 2731/2012 i.e., the State of Mizoram & Ors. Vs. C. Lalbiakthanga. (iv) Shyam Sundar Sarma Vs. Pannalal Jaiswal & Ors. (2005) 1 SCC 436 . (v) N.F. Railway Vs. Manliana & Ors. passed by this Court in RFA No. 10/2015 vide Judgment & Order dated 29.3.2018. (vi) Judgment & Order dated 30.5.2016 passed by this Court in WP(C) No. 82/2016 Aspro Raj Tali & Ors Vs. State of Mizoram & Ors. 11. Appearing for the appellant in L. A Appeal No. 4/2019, Mr. A.R. Malhotra, the learned counsel submits that the appeal is filed challenging the Judgment & Order dated 18.07.2019 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge-III, Aizawl in L.A. Case No. 35/2013, whereby the reference application of the appellant was dismissed. Referring to the grounds taken in the appeal, the learned counsel submits that the Court below erred in law by holding that the land value of Periodic Patta was not liable to be compensated. In fact, the Reference Court in L.A. Case No. 33/2013 arising out of Award No. 5/2012 vide its Judgment & Order dated 12.12.2016, awarded market value of the land @ Rs. 200 per sq.ft. to the petitioners therein. Although the N.F. Railway filed an appeal alongwith an application for condonation of delay i.e., RFA No. 22/2017 and IA (C) No. 129/2017 respectively, the same were dismissed by this Court vide order dated 08.11.2018 and no further appeal was preferred by the N.F. Railway before the Supreme Court. 200 per sq.ft. to the petitioners therein. Although the N.F. Railway filed an appeal alongwith an application for condonation of delay i.e., RFA No. 22/2017 and IA (C) No. 129/2017 respectively, the same were dismissed by this Court vide order dated 08.11.2018 and no further appeal was preferred by the N.F. Railway before the Supreme Court. He therefore submits that since the present appellant is similarly situated like the petitioners in L.A. Case No. 33/2013 and having a Periodic Patta, he is also entitled to the market value for his land @ Rs. 200 per sq.ft. alongwith solatium and interest. 12. Mr. A.R. Malhotra, by referring to the case of Ravindra & Anr. Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, UKP, Bagalkot, re-ported in (2017) 11 SCC 495 and the case of Ram Swaroop & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., reported in: (2017). 2 SCC 413 submits that the Apex Court held that the compensation granted in respect of the same acquisition and covered by the same notification should not be denied to other land owners, who are similarly situated. He submits that even in the present case, the land belonging to the appellant is clearly under the same notification and similar to those in L.A. Case No. 33/2013. Therefore, there is no reason as to why similar compensation should not be granted to him. 13. Mr. A.R. Malhotra by further referring to the case of Narendra & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., reported in (2017) 9 SCC 426 and the case of Ashok Kumar & Anr. Vs. State of Haryana, reported in (2016) 4 SCC 544 submits that the Apex Court in these two cases held that the amount of compensation that a Court can award cannot be restricted to the amount claimed by the applicant and it is the duty of the Court to award just and fair compensation taking into consideration the true market value and other relevant factors, irrespective of the claim made by the owner. He therefore submits that although the appellant claimed only Rs. 50 per sq.ft. as market value for his land, but there is no impediment for this Court to award Rs. 200 per sq.ft., as he is similarly situated with the land owners in L.A. Case No. 33/2013, who was awarded Rs. 200 per sq.ft. as market value. 14. Mr. He therefore submits that although the appellant claimed only Rs. 50 per sq.ft. as market value for his land, but there is no impediment for this Court to award Rs. 200 per sq.ft., as he is similarly situated with the land owners in L.A. Case No. 33/2013, who was awarded Rs. 200 per sq.ft. as market value. 14. Mr. A.R. Malhotra further submits that the Court below could not have relied upon Notification dated 29.12.2009, inasmuch as, the same was neither exhibited nor proved by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, while adducing evidence. Also, the Reference Court in its Judgment & Order dated 12.12.2016 in L.A. Case No. 33/2013 had also considered the impact of Notification dated 29.12.2009 and concluded that Periodic Patta holders are entitled to enjoy same benefit as LSC holders. Therefore, even for this reason alone, the impugned judgment and order is liable to be interfered with by this Court. 15. Lastly, Mr. A.R. Malhotra, learned counsel submits that the Court below committed error in deciding issue No. 6 against the appellant by holding that there is no reason to award solatium and interest to him. He submits that since the appellant is similarly situated to the Periodic Patta holders in L.A. Case No. 33/2013, he is entitled to be awarded the market value of his land alongwith solatium and interest in accordance with law. He thus submits that under the circumstances, the impugned judgment and order should be set aside by this Court and the appellant be awarded compensation @ Rs. 200 per sq.ft. as market value for his land. 16. Mr. A.R. Malhotra, the learned counsel also appears for the appellant in L.A. Appeal No. 5/2019 and he submits that the same is preferred by the appellant challenging the Judgment & Order dated 27.05.2019, passed by the Court of Additional District & Sessions Judge-III, Aizawl in L.A. Case No. 34/2013. The learned counsel submits that the grounds taken for challenging the impugned judgment and order by the appellant is similar to the grounds taken in L.A. Appeal No. 3/2019. The learned counsel submits that the grounds taken for challenging the impugned judgment and order by the appellant is similar to the grounds taken in L.A. Appeal No. 3/2019. He submits that the appellant is the holder of House Pass No. 102/2010, which was issued by the competent authority under the State Government and therefore, he has every right to be compensated for the value of his land and also to be paid solatium and interest, as entitled to him in terms of the L.A. Act. 17. Mr. Ali Hussain, learned counsel for the N.F. Railway (respondent No. 2) at the outset submits that L.A. Appeal No. 3/2019 is not maintainable, inasmuch as, the Northeast Frontier Railway (N.F. Railway) is not a party to the proceedings. He submits that as per Section 80(b) of the CPC, in case a suit is filed against the Central Government where it relates to the railways, the General Manager of the railway concerned should be made a party. In the present case, the same having not being done, the N.F. Railway have no liability to either pay compensation to the appellant or respond to the appeals. The learned Standing counsel further submits that in hilly area like the State of Mizoram, different locations will have different advantages and disadvantages and therefore, all the lands cannot be treated equally but will have to be considered on the location and topography of each land individually. The appellant in his reference application claimed Rs. 60 per sq.ft. as the market value for his land and therefore, it is beyond his pleadings to claim the market value at Rs. 200 per sq.ft. He submits that such a claim is wholly untenable and cannot be accepted. Mr. Ali Hussain by referring to the Judgment & Order dated 23.6.2015, passed by this Court in RFA No. 7/2015 submits that without there being any evidence to show that the land of the appellants are in the same vicinity, there was no question of awarding the same rate of compensation given to other land owners. In holding so, this Court relied upon the Apex Court decision rendered in Ravinder Narain & Anr. Vs. Union of India, reported in (2003) 4 SCC 481 . Mr. In holding so, this Court relied upon the Apex Court decision rendered in Ravinder Narain & Anr. Vs. Union of India, reported in (2003) 4 SCC 481 . Mr. Ali Hussain further refers to Notification dated 31.08.1992, issued by the Commissioner & Secretary to the Government of Mizoram, Revenue Department whereby it was reiterated for the information of all the Village Councils in Aizawl and Lunglei District that under the House Sites Act, Village Councils are not competent to make allotment of land for agricultural purposes. Regularization of such passes was therefore strictly prohibited. He further submits that a similar instruction was issued by the State Government in the form of an Office Memorandum dated 13.4.1993 and thereafter, on 29.12.2009, whereby the Revenue Department pursuant to the decision of the Council of Ministers in its meeting held on 1.12.2009 notified that the land value for Periodic Patta and Village Council Passes should not be assessed for payment of compensation. He therefore submits that the appellants having "Village Council Passes, Periodic Pattas and House Passes, they are not entitled to payment of any compensation towards the market value of the land. 18. Mr. Ali Hussain further refers to the Order dated 11.05.2017 passed by this Court in WP(C) No. 139/2016, wherein the claim for compensation by the petitioners who were Village Council pass holders issued under Section 3 of the House Sites Act were held to be not entitled to compensation since a Village Council is not competent to issue land passes for agricultural purposes. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed. The learned counsel further refers to the Judgment & Order dated 26.06.2015 rendered by this Court in WP(C) No. 80/2015. He submits that in the said judgment and order, this Court clearly held that a Village Council was not competent to issue any pass for agricultural purposes in terms of Section 3 of the House Sites Act. Therefore, while remanding the case back to the District Collector, this Court observed that the District Collector should keep Section 3 of the House Sites Act in mind. The learned counsel submits that the decision was put to further challenge in W.A. No. 200/2015 before the Division Bench of this Court but the same was dismissed. Therefore, while remanding the case back to the District Collector, this Court observed that the District Collector should keep Section 3 of the House Sites Act in mind. The learned counsel submits that the decision was put to further challenge in W.A. No. 200/2015 before the Division Bench of this Court but the same was dismissed. He further submits that the case of the petitioners in that case and the case of the appellants in the present case are distinguishable, inasmuch as, the petitioners in the referred case had filed an application under Section 28 A of the L.A. Act, whereas the present appellants filed their respective reference applications under Section 18 of the same Act. For this reason, he submits that the appellants cannot derive any benefit from the order passed by the Writ Court or the Writ Appellate Court. 19. Mr. Ali Hussain, learned Standing Counsel further refers to the case of State of Mizoram & Ors. Vs. C. Lalbiakthanga in which case the State Government had preferred an appeal before this Court against the judgment of the Reference Court fixing the market value of the land at Rs. 40 per sq.ft. The order of the Reference Court was upheld by this Court and when the matter was taken for further appeal before the Apex Court, the same was disposed of after the parties came to a consensus that the market value be fixed at Rs. 38 per sq.ft., instead of Rs. 40 per sq.ft. He therefore submits that having regard to the fixation of the market value in that case and comparing the same to the present case, the claim for market value @ Rs. 200 per sq.ft. is far-fetched, without justification and highly excessive. The learned Standing counsel therefore submits that since there is no evidence to show that the land of the appellants command a market value of Rs. 200 per sq.ft., the matters at best should be remanded back to the Reference Court for fresh consideration and for leading evidence, to support the claim for enhancement. 20. I have heard the submissions made by the learned counsels for the rival parties and I have perused the materials available on record. 200 per sq.ft., the matters at best should be remanded back to the Reference Court for fresh consideration and for leading evidence, to support the claim for enhancement. 20. I have heard the submissions made by the learned counsels for the rival parties and I have perused the materials available on record. It may be noticed that this Court had remanded the matter back to the Reference Court to consider as to whether the land owners, whose lands were covered by House Passes/Periodic Patta, VC Pass and Permits have the right for title of ownership over the said land by taking additional recourse to the provisions of the land laws applicable to the State of Mizoram. On remand, the reference applications have been dismissed by the Reference Court. Insofar as the question, as to whether the holder of a periodic patta has the right to be compensated for the value of his land, this Court in State of Mizoram & Ors. Vs. C. Lalbiakthanga, reported in 2012(1) GLT 53 rejected the contention of the State appellants that the holder of a periodic patta is not entitled to any compensation and that the same was without any substance. The relevant portion of the Judgment at paragraph Nos. 15 and 16 may be abstracted hereunder for ready perusal:- "15. Under Section 8 of the Mizo District (Land and Revenue) Act, 1956, settlement holder has been defined in Section 2(8). As per the said definition, "settlement holder" means any person other man a pass holder, who has entered into an engagement with the District Council to pay land revenue and is deemed to have acquired the status of settlement holder under Section 7 of the said Act Section 7 of the said Act provides that the settlement holder shall have heritable and transferable right of use on or of sub-letting in his land subject to 2(two) conditions, namely: (1) payment of all revenue and taxes from time to time legally assessed or imposed in respect of the land, and (2) such terms and conditions as are expressed in his settlement lease and the rules made thereunder". 16. In the present case the respondent is holding a Periodic Patta since 1976 continuously till the acquisition of the land. 16. In the present case the respondent is holding a Periodic Patta since 1976 continuously till the acquisition of the land. Therefore, the contention advanced by the appellants that the respondent being a Periodic Patta holder is not entitled to any compensation is without any substance and is hereby rejected. In any case, the crucial expression appearing in Section 18 of the Act is "person interested. Any "person interested" can invoke the provision of Section 18 of the Act. The expression "person interested" is defined in Section 3(b) of the Act. As per the said definition, the expression "person interested" includes all persons claiming an interest in compensation to be made on account of the acquisition of land under the Act and a person shall be deemed to be interested in land if he is interested in an easement affecting the land." 21. In respect of the claim of a land owner for compensation while holding a VC Pass, this Court in the Judgment & Order dated 29.3.2018 rendered in RFA No. 10/2015 i.e., Northern Front Railway Vs. Sh. Manliana & 7 Ors., while agreeing and adopting the decision rendered in C. Lalbiakthanga (Supra), also took into account the expression "person interested" as defined in Section 3(b) of the L.A. Act and accordingly held that in order to qualify to be a person interested, there has to be a claim for compensation on account of the land to be acquired and such interest should be in an easement affecting the land. As such, the right to be compensated for the land cannot be denied solely on the basis of the nature of the pass over the land. This view was also taken because of the fact that the appellant never contested the claim of land value compensation by the Village Council Pass holders and therefore, this Court held that it was not open for them to raise such objection at that stage. Even in the case at hand, besides stating in their written objection that the N.F. Railway already paid whatever amount was awarded by the Collector, no question is raised on the claim of the land owners towards land valuation. The relevant portion of the judgment in Sh. Manliana & 7 Ors. (Supra) is abstracted herein below for ready perusal:- "13. Even in the case at hand, besides stating in their written objection that the N.F. Railway already paid whatever amount was awarded by the Collector, no question is raised on the claim of the land owners towards land valuation. The relevant portion of the judgment in Sh. Manliana & 7 Ors. (Supra) is abstracted herein below for ready perusal:- "13. In the case of C. Lalbiakthanga (Supra), this Court has held that Periodic Patta holders are entitled to land value compensation. The decision was challenged before the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 2731/2012 but the decision of the High Court was upheld by the Apex Court. Therefore, in so far as the claim for land value compensation by Periodic Patta holders is concerned, the same is already a settled position. Therefore, periodic patta holders will be entitled to land value compensation. In so far as similar claim by holders of Village Council pass is concerned, it may be noticed that Section 3(b) of the L.A Act provides that the expression "person interested" includes all persons claiming an interest for compensation to be made on account of the acquisition of land under the Act; and a person shall be deemed to be interested in land if he is interested in an easement affecting the land. From a perusal of the said provision, it can be seen that in order to qualify to be a person interested, there has to be a claim for compensation on account of the land to be acquired and such interest should be in an easement affecting the land. Therefore, the right to be compensated for the land cannot be denied solely on the basis of the nature of the pass over the land. The appellant in fact, besides in the appeal, never contested to the claim of land value compensation by the Village Council pass holders and therefore, it will not be open for them to raise such objection at this stage." 22. The Apex Court in the case of Rishab Ispat Ltd. & Ors. The appellant in fact, besides in the appeal, never contested to the claim of land value compensation by the Village Council pass holders and therefore, it will not be open for them to raise such objection at this stage." 22. The Apex Court in the case of Rishab Ispat Ltd. & Ors. (Supra), while examining the contentious issue raised before the Reference Court that the claimants did not have any right to compensation, as the land possessed by them was in violation of the UP Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (U.P. Act 1 of 1951), held that there was no evidence to show that the claimants were in illegal and unauthorized possession of land which was said to be vested in the State Government by the said Act. That such a plea could not be raised in a proceeding under Section 18 of the L.A. Act. The relevant portion of the said decision may be abstracted hereunder:- "10. It appears from the record that the plea urged on behalf of the Land Acquisition Officer was initially upheld by the Reference Court, but later that judgment was reviewed and it was held that there was no evidence on record to prove that the claimants had acquired any land in violation of the aforesaid provisions. The High Court considered the provisions on which reliance was placed by the State particularly, Sections 154 and 167 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition Act. Section 167 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition Act in terms provides that where any land has vested in the State Government, it shall be lawful for the Collector to take possession of such land and to direct that any person occupying such land be evicted from such land. The Collector is also authorized to use or cause to be used such force as may be necessary for the purpose of taking over such possession or evicting such unauthorized persons. The High Court found that there was no evidence whatsoever to substantiate the plea that the claimants were in illegal and unauthorized possession of lands which had vested in the State of Uttar Pradesh. It was not shown that at any stage any action was taken to evict and dispossess the unauthorized occupants of such lands which had vested in the State of Uttar Pradesh. It was not shown that at any stage any action was taken to evict and dispossess the unauthorized occupants of such lands which had vested in the State of Uttar Pradesh. On the contrary it was not disputed that the claimants were in possession till the date the possession of the land was taken from them pursuant to the Notifications issued under Section 4(1) and Section 6 of the Act. Till that time they were in possession and their possession was not disturbed by any action taken by the Collector or the Gaon Sabha under any law. Thus the High Court held that there was no evidence to substantiate the contention of the State that the claimants/land-owners were in unauthorized possession of Government lands for which they could not be compensated. The High Court also noticed, and in our view rightly, that such a plea could not be raised in a proceeding under Section 18 of the Act. It is also not in dispute that the Special Land Acquisition Officer offered compensation to the claimants. That obviously was on the basis that the State recognized the claimants as the owners of the lands which were sought to be acquired. Having done so, and having made a reference to the Court under Section 18 of the Act, it could not be contended by the Special Land Acquisition Officer in the proceedings under Section 18 of the Act or in any proceedings arising there from that the claimants, to whom he had himself offered compensation, were not owners of the lands. The State ought to have taken appropriate proceedings, if any, permissible in law, to deny compensation to such claimants, who according to the State were in occupation of lands which had vested in the State of Uttar Pradesh. Having considered the material on record and the reasoning of the High Court we are satisfied that the High Court was right in holding that there was no material on record to prove that some of the claimants were unauthorized occupants of Government lands and, therefore, not entitled to compensation for such lands. Having considered the material on record and the reasoning of the High Court we are satisfied that the High Court was right in holding that there was no material on record to prove that some of the claimants were unauthorized occupants of Government lands and, therefore, not entitled to compensation for such lands. The High Court was also right in holding that in a reference under Section 18 of the Act such a contention could not be raised because matters that may be considered by a court in a reference under Section 18 of the Act are matters enumerated in Section 18 itself as also the following sections. This was not a case where two claimants had claimed compensation in respect of the same land, or there was any dispute as to the apportionment. The State wanted the Court to hold that the persons to whom the compensation had been offered, and who the Collector had reasons to believe were interested in the land, should not be granted any compensation on the ground that they had no interest in the lands and were in unauthorized possession of Government lands." 23. In the present case, it may be noticed that the ownership of the respective land of the appellants was never questioned by any person interested or otherwise and including the authorities who issued the land passes. There is no dispute to the fact that the appellants, except for the value of their land, were given compensation for crop damages etc. Therefore, it is for these reasons and in view of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Rishab Ispat Ltd. & Ors. (Supra), I am of the considered view that the appellants cannot be deprived compensation for the value of their land. 24. As for the issue on the maintainability of these appeals, as sought to be raised by Mr. Ali Hussain on the ground reflected in paragraph No. 17 of this judgment, the same cannot be accepted in view of the fact that the NF Railway as appellant in the earlier round of litigation i.e., RFA No. 30 of 2014 had themselves presented their appeal as Northern Front Railway and likewise, in their appeal i.e., RFA No. 10 of 2015 which was dismissed on 29.03.2018. Though they maintain that they were arrayed as such by the opposite party before the Reference Court and therefore, it was not their fault However, the fact remains that they never sought rectification of the error and proceeded to participate in the litigation without any difficulty. Therefore, I am not inclined to entertain such objection at this stage. 25. Now coming to the question as to what should be the market value for the land of the appellants, it may be seen that the appellants in L.A. Appeal No. 3/2019 in their reference application claimed Rs. 60 per sq.ft. as the market value for their land, while the appellants in L.A. Appeal No. 4/2019 and L.A. Appeal No. 5/2019 have claimed Rs. 200 per sq.ft. as the market value of their land. It goes without saying that no two plots of land can be similar in all respect and there are bound to be differences in the area, location, terrain, accessibility etc. Therefore, it will only be after considering the topography of the land of the appellants that the market value can be fixed. As was observed by this Court while remanding the case back to the Reference Court, the Reference Court is to take evidence on the land pass of the appellants to know the topography of the land while considering the advantages and disadvantages of each land. The land value cannot be the same in respect of lands having different topography and location. Therefore, determination of the same will have to be done by the Reference Court on the basis of the evidence led before it. 26. Thus, after due consideration of the matter in its entirety, and in view of the findings arrived at and reasons stated in the forgoing paragraphs, this Court finds that the appellants, irrespective of the status of their land passes, will be entitled to a reasonable compensation for the value of their land and also solatium and interest as per the LA Act. Accordingly, the matter is remanded back to the Reference Court to determine the market value of the land of the appellants on the basis of the evidence on record and by giving them an opportunity of hearing. The Reference Court shall complete the process expeditiously and preferably, within a period of 2 (two) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Reference Court shall complete the process expeditiously and preferably, within a period of 2 (two) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Once the market value is fixed, the same should be forwarded to the District Collector who shall within one (1) month of receiving the same, compute the compensation payable and which shall also include solatium and interest as per the LA Act. Thereafter, the same shall be forwarded to the Acquiring Authority i.e., N.F. Railway who shall deposit the assessed amount before the Collector, within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of the assessment. Once the amount is deposited, the same be disbursed to the land owners without delay. 27. With the above observations and directions, all the 3 (three) appeals are disposed of.