JUDGMENT Nelson Sailo, J. - This order will dispose of both RFA No. 7/2019 and C.O No. 3/2019. 2. Heard Mr. Aldrin Lallawmzuala, learned counsel for the appellants in RFA and Mr. Ali Hussain, learned Standing Counsel, NF Railway for the Cross-objector. 3. This is an appeal against the Judgment & Order dated 01.07.2019 passed by the Addl. District & Sessions Judge-III, Aizawl in L.A Case No. 32/2013 whereby, the value of the land of the appellants has been fixed at Rs. 60/- per square feet. The claim of the appellant, on the other hand, is Rs. 200/- per square feet as was given to land owners whose lands are similarly situated. 4. The learned counsel submits that land was acquired for the purpose of construction of new Railway line from Bairabi to Sairang, vide Award No. 5/2012. As per the said award, the lands were divided into Group A, B, C & D categories and the lands of the appellants were categorized under Group-B Category. The appellants were found entitled for compensation only towards crops and not for the value of the land. Being aggrieved, the appellants preferred a Reference application, which was registered as L.A Case No. 32/2013. The Reference Court vide Judgment & Award dated 19.09.2014 awarded the market value for the land of the appellants at Rs. 60/- per square feet. Aggrieved with the decision, the NF Railway preferred RFA No. 12/2015 before this Court. The said appeal was disposed of vide Judgment & Order dated 17.11.2015 by remanding back the case to the Reference Court to afford an opportunity to the NF Railway to file their written objection to the Reference application of the appellants and to adduce evidence. 5. After the case was remanded back in the above manner, the Reference Court, after giving due opportunities to the parties, disposed of the Reference vide its Judgment & Order dated 24.07.2017, by coming to a finding that the appellants will be entitled to the value of their land @ Rs. 38/- per square feet. The Reference Court again, vide Corrigendum dated 17.11.2017, awarded solatium and interest under the relevant provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 (L.A Act). 6. Being aggrieved with the Judgment & Order and the Corrigendum passed by the Reference Court as stated above, the NF Railway preferred RFA No. 8/2018 before this Court while the appellant filed C.O No. 2/2018. The Reference Court again, vide Corrigendum dated 17.11.2017, awarded solatium and interest under the relevant provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 (L.A Act). 6. Being aggrieved with the Judgment & Order and the Corrigendum passed by the Reference Court as stated above, the NF Railway preferred RFA No. 8/2018 before this Court while the appellant filed C.O No. 2/2018. Both the first appeal as well as the cross-objection came to be disposed of by this Court vide Judgment & Order dated 18.01.2019 by remanding the case back to the Reference Court to decide the market value of the land afresh and if necessary, by giving opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence to that effect. 7. On remand, the appellants examined two witnesses while the NF Railway examined one witness. Thereafter, the Reference Court, vide its Judgment & Order dated 01.07.2019, disposed of the Reference Application by fixing the market value of the land of the appellant @ Rs. 60/- per square feet. The appellants as well as the NF Railway being aggrieved are once again before this Court through the First Appeal and the Cross-objection respectively. 8. Mr. Aldrin Lallawmzuala, learned counsel submits that a notification under Section 4 of the L.A Act was issued by the Revenue Department, Govt. of Mizoram on 29.08.2011. Thereafter, a notice under Section 9 (1) of the L.A Act was issued on 27.01.2012. Thereafter, the District Collector pronounced Award No. 5/2012 in which the land belonging to the appellants were placed under Group-B category. According to the award, the market value for land under Group-B category was fixed at Rs. 40/- per square feet. However, the rate of the market value was subsequently enhanced to Rs. 200/- per square feet. In this connection, the learned counsel draws the attention of this Court to the Judgment & Order dated 18.06.2015 passed in RFA No. 24/2014 by this Court. The learned counsel submits that the said appeal was in connection with L.A Case No. 31/2013. Reference Court had assessed the market value of the land of the appellants therein @ Rs. 200/- per square feet and being aggrieved, the NF Railway had preferred the appeal. The learned counsel submits that not only was the appeal dismissed but also the SLP preferred before the Apex Court i.e., SLP(C) No. 2853/2016 was dismissed by the Apex Court vide Order dated 19.02.2016. 200/- per square feet and being aggrieved, the NF Railway had preferred the appeal. The learned counsel submits that not only was the appeal dismissed but also the SLP preferred before the Apex Court i.e., SLP(C) No. 2853/2016 was dismissed by the Apex Court vide Order dated 19.02.2016. The learned counsel submits that the location and other details of the land involved in that case are similar and identical to the land of the present appellants. Therefore, the case of the appellants being squarely covered by L.A Case No. 33/2013 or RFA No. 24/2014, a similar benefit should be given to the appellants. 9. Mr. Aldrin Lallawmzuala, the learned counsel further submits that in another similar case i.e., L.A Appeal No. 31/2013 wherein, the location and other details of the land involved are also similar to the land of the present appellants, the NF Railway belatedly preferred an appeal alongwith an application for condonation of delay i.e., I.A(C) No. 129/2017 with RFA No. 22/2017. This Court however refused to condone the delay and dismissed the application as well as the appeal vide order dated 08.11.2018. The NF Railway approached the Apex Court by filing SLP(C) No. 9197/2020 but the same was also dismissed vide Order dated 09.07.2020 on grounds of delay. The learned counsel submits that refusal to condone the delay will also amount to upholding the decision of the Reference Court, which fixed Rs. 200/- as the market price of the land per square feet, since the order has attained its finality. He submits that pursuant to the dismissal of both the SLPs in connection with L.A Appeal No. 31 & 33/2013, the NF Railways have complied with the direction of the Reference Court by depositing the calculated assessment of market value of land @ Rs. 200/- per square feet. The land of the present appellants being similar in all respect, they are also entitled to Rs. 200/- per square feet. 10. The learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to the abstract of Award No. 5/2012, which is annexed to Award No. 5/2012 itself at Annexure-III of the appeal to show that the land of the land owners in respect of L.A Appeal No. 33/2013 fall under the same location with that of the present appellants. The learned counsel also refers to the deposition of appellant No. 2 before the Reference Court. The learned counsel also refers to the deposition of appellant No. 2 before the Reference Court. The said witness in his examination-in-chief deposed that their lands were located adjacent to NH- 54 and 1 (one) kilometer away from Lengpui Airport. The fruit bearing trees and crops were the main sources of the livelihood of their families. He also deposed that their lands were situated adjacent to the lands of C. Sanglura, Isaka Fanai, Lalkamlova, Lalthanzama, who are the petitioner Nos. 33, 27, 26, 18 & 17 respectively in L.A Case No. 33/2013. Therefore, it was clear that there was similarity between the two sets of land since they are adjacent to each other. The said witness also deposed that their lands were also adjacent to the land of the petitioners in L.A Case No. 31/2013 namely; B. Thangdailova, Lalsangkhuma, H. Lalthlamuani, Pazawna and H. Lalramthanga, who were petitioner Nos. 27, 31, 28, 32 & 29 respectively in L.A Case No. 31/2013. As such, the appellants would be entitled to similar market value of their land as given to the petitioners in L.A Case No. 31 & 33/2013. 11. Mr. Aldrin Lallawmzuala has also drawn the attention of this Court to the deposition of appellant No. 3 before the Reference Court and submits that the said witness made similar deposition as what was made by the appellant No. 2. The deposition made by them in the examination-in-chief were neither rebutted nor falsified by the NF Railway during cross- examination and therefore, there can be no other conclusion but to grant the appellants the market value for their land @ Rs. 200/- per square feet. In support of his submission, the learned counsel relies upon the following authorities:- (i) Ashok Kumar & Anr. vs. State of Haryana, (2016) 4 SCC 544 . (ii) Narendra & Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., (2017) 9 SCC 426 . 12. Mr. Ali Hussain, learned Standing Counsel, NF Railway, on the other hand, submits that the NF Railway has not been made a party to the proceeding in terms of Section 80(1) of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC). There is also no basis for fixing the market value @ Rs. 60/- per square feet. 12. Mr. Ali Hussain, learned Standing Counsel, NF Railway, on the other hand, submits that the NF Railway has not been made a party to the proceeding in terms of Section 80(1) of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC). There is also no basis for fixing the market value @ Rs. 60/- per square feet. He further submits that since the appellants are holders of periodic patta, they are not entitled to compensation for the value of their land as notified by the Revenue Department, Govt. of Mizoram on 29.12.2009. He also submits that in RFA No. 23/2011, which was between Kawlbuaia vs. Power Grid Corporation of India Limited, it was observed that periodic patta holders are entitled for compensation @ Rs. 38/- per square feet and the same was upheld by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 8792/3013 which was disposed of vide Order dated 31.10.2014. Therefore, the Reference Court committed error in fixing Rs. 60/- as the market value for periodic patta per square feet. The learned counsel further submits that the appellants cannot rely upon the case of L.A Appeal No. 33/2013 inasmuch as, this Court as well as the Apex Court did not enter into the merits of the case but dismissed the appeal of the NF Railway on the grounds of delay. At any rate, in order to seek similar relief, the appellants have not exhibited any sale-deed to show that the market value of the land belonging to them will be Rs. 200/- per square feet as was done by the land owners in the other case which is relied upon by the appellants. Mr. Ali Hussain lastly submits that those who were given the market value of land @ 200/- per square feet were owners of Land Settlement Certificate (LSCs) whereas; the appellants are only holders of periodic patta. As such, they cannot claim to the equated with those having LSCs. Under the circumstance, he submits that the appeal of the land owners be dismissed and the impugned Judgment & Order, modified by restricting the market value as determined by the District Collector, without any enhancement. 13. I have heard the learned counsels for the rival parties and I have perused the materials available on record. 14. Under the circumstance, he submits that the appeal of the land owners be dismissed and the impugned Judgment & Order, modified by restricting the market value as determined by the District Collector, without any enhancement. 13. I have heard the learned counsels for the rival parties and I have perused the materials available on record. 14. From the projection made by the appellant as well as the cross- objector, the issue to be decided is as to whether the Reference Court is justified in fixing Rs. 60/- per square feet as the market value of the land of the appellants and/or whether the appellants would be entitled to an enhanced amount or rate of Rs. 200/- per square feet, as given to those land owners in L.A Appeal No. 31 & 33/2013. 15. A perusal of the Award No. 5/2012 would go to show that the appellants as well as the land owners in L.A Appeal No. 31 & 33/2013 were all arrayed as land owners in the award and in fact the names of the land owners in L.A Appeal No. 33/2013 find place above appellant No. 3 and below appellant Nos. 1 & 2 of the present appeal. It is also seen that they are all holders of periodic patta. As already noticed herein above, the appellant Nos. 1 & 2 examined themselves as plaintiff witnesses before the Reference Court wherein they clearly deposed that their lands were situated adjacent to the land owners in L.A Case No. 31 & 33/2013. Therefore, in absence of any evidence to the contrary, it will have to be accepted that the parties are similarly situated. It is also noticed that despite the appeal of the NF Railway i.e., RFA No. 12/2015 having been remanded back by this Court vide Judgment & Order dated 17.11.2015, the NF Railway has not filed any written objection. 16. Mr. Ali Hussain, learned Standing Counsel, NF Railway has tried to get the support from the notification issued by the State Government in the Revenue Department on 29.12.2009, to contend that the holders of periodic patta are not entitled to compensation towards the value of their land. However, the fact remains that NF Railway has not filed any written objection and the lone witness who was examined on their behalf neither exhibited nor proved the said Government notification before the Reference Court. However, the fact remains that NF Railway has not filed any written objection and the lone witness who was examined on their behalf neither exhibited nor proved the said Government notification before the Reference Court. Therefore, the said notification cannot be imported at this stage in such a manner. Further, the land owners in connection with L.A Appeal No. 33/2013 were also periodic patta holders and the appeal of the NF Railway being dismissed by this Court as well as by the Apex Court, the Judgment & Order of the Reference Court attained finality and compensation towards market value assessed @ Rs. 200/- per square feet have already paid by the NF Railway to the land owners. It may also be noted at this stage that this Court in State of Mizoram & Ors. vs. C. Lalbiakthanga,2012 1 GLR 83, held that periodic patta holder will be entitled to compensation, inasmuch as, such patta holder will be included in the expression 'person interested' as defined in Section 3(b) of the L.A Act. Therefore, they cannot be any manner of doubt on the entitlement of compensation towards land value by a periodic patta holder. 17. Now coming to the issue as to whether the appellants will be entitled to market value higher than what they actually claimed, it will be useful to abstract what the Apex Court had held in Narendra & Ors (supra). The relevant portion of the Judgment may be abstracted herein below:- "2. The award dated 18th January, 1990 was passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer determining the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 50 per square yard. The appellants as well as other villagers were not satisfied with the rates so fixed and, therefore, sought the reference under Section 18 of the Act. Matter was referred to the Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad for determination of market value of the acquired land. Reference court, vide its judgment and order dated 19 th April, 1999, increased the rate of compensation from Rs.50/- per sq. yards to Rs.90/- per square yards. Even this increase in the compensation was not to the satisfaction of the land owners. Various appeals came to be filed. Appeals were also filed by these appellants claiming that the compensation be enhanced to Rs. 115/- per square yards. yards to Rs.90/- per square yards. Even this increase in the compensation was not to the satisfaction of the land owners. Various appeals came to be filed. Appeals were also filed by these appellants claiming that the compensation be enhanced to Rs. 115/- per square yards. Some of the other land owners whose lands were acquired, however, had claimed higher compensation. The first batch of appeals filed by others was decided by the High Court by judgment dated 13 th November, 2014. The High Court found merit in those appeals and fixed the compensation at the rate of Rs.297/- per square yards. When the appeals of the appellants herein came up for hearing before High Court, the High Court took note of its earlier judgment and accepted the fact that the land of the appellants was acquired by the same Notification vide which land of others was acquired wherein the High Court had awarded the compensation at the rate of Rs.297/- per square yards. Notwithstanding the same, insofar as the appellants are concerned, the High Court has limited the compensation to Rs.115/- per square yards because of the reasoning that the appellant had demanded compensation at that rate only and had paid the court fees also accordingly. Therefore, opined the High Court, it was difficult to allow compensation at a rate higher than the rate claimed by the appellants. 3...... 4..... 5. After hearing the counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the issue has already been settled by this Court in Ashok Kumar and Another vs. State of Haryana wherein it is held that it is the duty of the Court to award just and fair compensation taking into consideration true market value and other relevant factors, irrespective of claim made by the land owner and there is no cap on the maximum rate of compensation that can be awarded by the court and the courts are not restricted to awarding only that amount that has been claimed by the land owners/applicants in their application before it. 6. The matter can be looked into from another angle as well, viz., in the light of the spirit contained in Section 28A of the Act. 6. The matter can be looked into from another angle as well, viz., in the light of the spirit contained in Section 28A of the Act. This provision reads as under: "28-A. Re-determination of the amount of compensation on the basis of the award of the court---(1) Wherein an award under this Part, the Court allows to the applicant any amount of compensation in excess of the amount awarded by the Collector under Section II, the persons interested in all the other land covered by the same notification under Section 4, sub-section (1) and who are also aggrieved by the award of the Collector may, notwithstanding that they had not made an application to the Collector under Section 18, by written application to the Collector within three months from the date of the award of the court require that the amount of compensation payable to them may be re- determined on the basis of the amount of compensation awarded by the court." 7. It transpires from the bare reading of the aforesaid provision that even in the absence of exemplars and other evidence, higher compensation can be allowed for others whose land was acquired under the same Notification. 8. The purpose and objective behind the aforesaid provision is salutary in nature. It is kept in mind that those land owners who are agriculturist in most of the cases, and whose land is acquired for public purpose should get fair compensation. Once a particular rate of compensation is judicially determined, which becomes a fair compensation, benefit thereof is to be given even to those who could not approach the court. It is with this aim the aforesaid provision is incorporated by the Legislature. Once we keep the aforesaid purpose in mind, the mere fact that the compensation which was claimed by some of the villagers was at lesser rate than the compensation which is ultimately determined to be fair compensation, should not be a ground to deny such persons appropriate and fair compensation on the ground that they claimed compensation at a lesser rate. In such cases, strict rule of pleadings are not be made applicable and rendering substantial justice to the parties has to be the paramount consideration. It is to be kept in mind that in the matter of compulsory acquisition of lands by the Government, the villagers whose land gets acquired are not willing parties. In such cases, strict rule of pleadings are not be made applicable and rendering substantial justice to the parties has to be the paramount consideration. It is to be kept in mind that in the matter of compulsory acquisition of lands by the Government, the villagers whose land gets acquired are not willing parties. It was not their voluntary act to sell of their land. They were compelled to give the land to the State for public purpose. For this purpose, the consideration which is to be paid to them is also not of their choice. On the contrary, as per the scheme of the Act, the rate at which compensation should be paid to the persons divested of their land is determined by the Land Acquisition Collector. Scheme further provides that his determination is subject to judicial scrutiny in the form of reference to the District Judge and appeal to the High Court etc. In order to ensure that the land owners are given proper compensation, the Act provides for 'fair compensation'. Once such a fair compensation is determined judicially, all land owners whose land was taken away by the same Notification should become the beneficiary thereof. Not only it is an aspect of good governance, failing to do so would also amount to discrimination by giving different treatment to the persons though identically situated. On technical grounds, like the one adopted by the High Court in the impugned judgment, this fair treatment cannot be denied to them. 9..... 10..... 11..... 12..... 13..... 14..... 15..... 16..... 17. Simply because the appellants had paid court fee on the claim at the rate of Rs.115/- square yards could not be the reason to deny the compensation at a higher rate. This could be taken care of by directing the appellants to pay the difference in court fee after calculating the same at the rate of Rs.297/- per square yards. 18. In fine, the judgment of the High Court is set aside and these appeals are allowed holding that appellants are also entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.297/- per square yards. The difference in compensation along with other statutory benefits under the Act shall be calculated and paid to the appellants within a period of three months from today. It is also directed that the appellants shall make good in deficiency of court fee before the High Court. The difference in compensation along with other statutory benefits under the Act shall be calculated and paid to the appellants within a period of three months from today. It is also directed that the appellants shall make good in deficiency of court fee before the High Court. Appellants shall also be entitled to costs of these appeals. 18. In the case of Ashok Kumar & Anr. (supra) the Apex Court took into consideration the fact that in the pre-amended provisions of Section 25 of the L.A Act, there was a cap on the maximum of compensation which could be awarded but after the amendment of the L.A Act, by Act 68/1984 w.e.f., 24.09.1984, there no longer is a cap on the maximum compensation which can be awarded. The only requirement is that the compensation awarded by the Court should not be less that the amount awarded by Collector under Section 11 of the Act. The Apex Court held that it was therefore the duty of the Court to award just and fair compensation by taking into consideration, the true market value and other relevant factors irrespective of the claim made by the owner. Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court, the appellants can be awarded compensation beyond what they have claimed subject to the same being duly justified. The land owners in L.A Case No. 31 & 33 having been given Rs. 200/- per square feet as market value and considering the materials available on record and the evidence led by the appellants, I am of the considered view that the appellants are also entitled to Rs. 200/- per square feet, as the market value of their land. 19. In the result, the impugned Judgment & Order dated 01.07.2019 is hereby set aside and the District Collector, Aizawl District, Aizawl (respondent No. 1) is hereby directed to make the assessment by taking the market value of the appellants as Rs. 200/- per square feet. In computing the amount, the District Collector shall also calculate the solatium and interest as per Section 23(1) A (2) & 28 of the L.A Act. The assessment and calculation should be done and completed within a period of 6 (six) weeks from the date receipt of a certified copy of this order. 200/- per square feet. In computing the amount, the District Collector shall also calculate the solatium and interest as per Section 23(1) A (2) & 28 of the L.A Act. The assessment and calculation should be done and completed within a period of 6 (six) weeks from the date receipt of a certified copy of this order. Once the calculation is completed, the same shall be forwarded to the NF Railwaly immediately and the NF Railway shall make necessary arrangement for the fund within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of the assessment and deposit the same before the Collector. The amount deposited before the Collector shall be then disbursed to the appellants, without delay. 20. The appeal accordingly stands allowed and as for the cross- objection, the same is dismissed.