JUDGMENT : Shree Chandrashekhar, A.C.J. I.A. No. 3063 of 2024 in L.P.A. No. 43 of 2024 With I.A. No. 3061 of 2024 in L.P.A. No. 44 of 2024, With I.A. No. 3058 of 2024 in L.P.A. No. 45 of 2024 With I.A. No. 3060 of 2024 in L.P.A. No. 46 of 2024 These interlocutory applications have been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay of 563 days in preferring L.P.A Nos. 43 of 2024, 44 of 2024 and 45 of 2024 and 564 days in preferring L.P.A. No. 46 of 2024. 2. We are satisfied with the cause shown by the appellants in these applications and, therefore, the delays caused in preferring these Letters Patent Appeals are condoned. 3. I.A. No. 3063 of 2024 in L.P.A. No. 43 of 2024, I.A. No. 3061 of 2024 in L.P.A. No. 44 of 2024, I.A. No. 3058 of 2024 in L.P.A. No. 45 of 2024 and I.A. No. 3060 of 2024 in L.P.A. No. 46 of 2024 are, accordingly, allowed. L.P.A. No. 43 of 2024 With L.P.A. No.44 of 2024 With L.P.A. No.45 of 2024 With L.P.A. No. 46 of 2024 With L.P.A. No. 68 of 2024 With L.P.A. No. 151 of 2024 With L.P.A. No. 201 of 2024 With L.P.A. No. 210 of 2024 4. A batch of writ petitions [W.P.(C) No. 2847 of 2020 and analogous cases] was filed by the respondents who are residents of village Pahridih within Nawalshahi P.S. in the District of Koderma seeking compensation for acquisition of their rayati lands for construction of the block road from Bariyardih to Markacho in the Distrcit of Koderma. Feeling aggrieved by their forceful dispossession, they claimed compensation and cost. For the sake of convenience, we shall refer to the facts in W.P.(C) No. 2863 of 2020 [L.P.A. No. 43 of 2024]. Feeling aggrieved by their forceful dispossession, they claimed compensation and cost. For the sake of convenience, we shall refer to the facts in W.P.(C) No. 2863 of 2020 [L.P.A. No. 43 of 2024]. The prayers made by the respondents in this writ petition are extracted hereunder: i. For issuance of appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions or a writ in nature of Mandamus commanding upon the respondents to pay adequate compensation to the petitioners from the date of dispossession of the petitioners from their rayati land as the respondents have constructed block road Bariyardih to Markacho in the District of Koderma over a raiyati land of the petitioners having mauza-Gurha, khata no.-56, Plot nos.1359Area approx 50 decimal without any notice to or consent from the petitioners or without following the process of Land Acquisition as per the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 in spite of the protest of the petitioners/ villagers. AND/OR ii. For issuance of appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions or a writ in nature of Mandamus commanding upon the respondents directing him to pay heavy cost to the petitioners for forcibly dispossessing them from their land and putting them to continuous pecuniary loss and harassment for years and depriving them of enjoying the legal right of honorship of property which caused to the petitioners mental agony, embarrassment and denigration. AND/OR iii. For any other appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper for doing conscionable justice to the petitioners. 5. The writ Court referred to a decision by the co-ordinate Bench in “Basudeo Rana and others vrs. The State of Jharkhand” in “W.P.(C) No. 7709 of 2011” to form an opinion that the raiyats are entitled for compensation for mental agony caused by forceful dispossession and loss caused due to deprivation of enjoyment over their property. 5. The writ Court referred to a decision by the co-ordinate Bench in “Basudeo Rana and others vrs. The State of Jharkhand” in “W.P.(C) No. 7709 of 2011” to form an opinion that the raiyats are entitled for compensation for mental agony caused by forceful dispossession and loss caused due to deprivation of enjoyment over their property. The writ Court vide judgment dated 8th July 2022 made the following order: “Under the aforesaid circumstances, equal amount of compensation shall be added in the compensation of the land while paying to the petitioners, but equal amount along with interest shall be paid @ 7.5% per annum to quantify the compensation, as held by the Apex Court, in the case of Dharampal and Sons vs. U.P. State Road Transport Corporation & Others, reported in (2008) 12 SCC 208 , though it was a matter of Motor vehicle accident, but on the point of quantifying the interest, the Apex Court has considered it to be @ 7.5% per annum. However, these two parts of the amount i.e. equal amount of compensation for causing mental agony, embarrassment, declaration to the petitioners because of forcible dispossession and loss of crops as well as interest shall be charged and paid by the State, but the same shall be recovered from the erring officer(s) in accordance with law within a period of six months from the date of communication of a copy of this order. Further, cost of Rs.50,000/-shall be paid in each Writ Petition to the petitioners by the State, which shall also be recovered from the salary of the erring officer(s). Accordingly, all the Writ Petitions are allowed. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the office of the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms, Government of Jharkhand, the Principal Secretary, Department of Road Construction, Government of Jharkhand, the Deputy Commissioner, Koderma as well as the Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department, Koderma, through FAX or e-mail at once.” 6. The State of Jharkhand is aggrieved by the direction issued by the writ Court to pay compensation equal to the amount for land acquisition and interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. The State of Jharkhand is aggrieved by the direction issued by the writ Court to pay compensation equal to the amount for land acquisition and interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. In these Letters Patent Appeals, the State of Jharkhand put forth a plea that prompt steps were taken for payment of compensation to the raiyats and therefore in the circumstances of the case award of compensation equal to the amount of land acquisition with interest is not justified. 7. Mr. Manish Kumar, the learned State counsel would submits that the judgment in “Basudeo Rana” is distinguishable on facts and this judgment cannot be the basis to award compensation with interest to the land holders. 8. The pleadings before the writ Court disclose that the ownership right of the raiyats over the subject properties spread over khata nos. 22, 121, 56, 49, 1, 47, 51 and 48 in different blocks under mauza Gurha and Murkmanai was not disputed. The raiyats were therefore entitled to compensation for acquisition of their rayati lands. Under section 38 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, the Collector shall take possession of land after ensuring that full payment of compensation as well as rehabilitation and resettlement entitlements are paid or tendered to the entitled persons within a period of three months and within a period of six months for the monetary part of rehabilitation and resettlement entitlements listed in the Second Schedule commencing from the date of the award made under section 30. Therefore, the entitlement of the respondents to that extent cannot be disputed. 9. Now depriving a person of his rights over the landed property and thereby restricting him from enjoying the property in whatever manner he wants shall infringe Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. This is a fact brought on record that before the subject properties were acquired and compensation thereon paid to the villagers, the construction of block road from Bariyardih to Markacho had already started. The stand of the State of Jharkhand in the counter affidavit is that there was appreciable delay on the part of the Road Construction Department, Government of Jharkhand in sanctioning the amount of compensation. While that was the state of affairs, the writ petitioners suffered on account of their forcible dispossession and deprivation of enjoyment over their property. 10. The stand of the State of Jharkhand in the counter affidavit is that there was appreciable delay on the part of the Road Construction Department, Government of Jharkhand in sanctioning the amount of compensation. While that was the state of affairs, the writ petitioners suffered on account of their forcible dispossession and deprivation of enjoyment over their property. 10. In “Basudeo Rana”, this Court held as under: “The respondents have filed counter affidavit dated 22.4.2014 and made evasive statements. However, nowhere it has been stated that the said land is not a Raiyati land and the same does not belong to the petitioners. Almost admitting the petitioners' claim, they have stated that now they are trying to resolve the matter and are taking steps for payment of compensation. “Having heard learned counsel and considered thefacts and materials on record, I find that this is a case of administrative excess, hostility and arbitrariness for trampling the right of the citizens and forcibly constructing road on the Raiyati land of the petitioners without taking their consent or without taking any steps for acquisition of the said land in accordance with law. Such hostility, acts and deeds of the public officers erodes the peoples' faith in democracy and respect for rule of law. Though the matter appears to be forcible dispossession of some persons from a small piece of land, it has colossal adverse effect on the civilized society and peace living denizens and onslaught on liberty and right of citizens guaranteed by the Constitution of India. Though now the respondents, feeling the pulse of the situation, have offered to resolve the matter and pay compensation, the expression and the statement made in the affidavit does not demonstrate any sign of remorse and repentance for such afrocious step by public officer of a Welfare State. Such instance cannot be simply ignored by giving opportunity to wipe out the adverse effect and offering compensation after forcibly dislodging the petitioners from their Raiyati land. Such incidents warrant due attention of the authority at the helm of the affairs so that effective measures be assured for peoples' safety of life and property and for preventing recurrence of unbecoming administrative actions. Such incidents warrant due attention of the authority at the helm of the affairs so that effective measures be assured for peoples' safety of life and property and for preventing recurrence of unbecoming administrative actions. In view of the above facts and circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of directing the Deputy Commissioner, Koderma to assess the amount of compensation according to the legal provisions prescribed for determining the valuation of land for acquisition, within a period of four weeks and determine and pay compensation adding the equal amount for causing mental agony, embarrassment and denigration to the petitioners by forcibly dispossessing them from their land and for putting them to continued loss of crops and harassment for years and depriving them of enjoying the legal rights of ownership of the property. The respondents shall also pay Rs. 10,000/-to the petitioners as the consolidated cost of this writ petition within the said period. (emphasis supplied) If the amount of compensation, as directed above, is not paid within the said period, the petitioner is entitled to get compensatory interest @ 10% per annum in addition to the statutory interest from the date the petitioners were dispossessed from the land till the date of final payment.” 11. This is admitted at the bar that the decision in “Basudeo Rana” was not challenged by the State of Jharkhand and the directions issued therein have been complied. Judicial discipline and propriety require that a decision by a co-ordinate Bench of equal strength is accepted as binding on another co-ordinate Bench on a similar issue in law. This is necessary for the Courts to follow the judicial precedent to instill confidence of the litigants in the judicial system. Certainty in the judicial system is undoubtedly the most desired requirement that the Courts shall endeavour to establish. This is necessary also for the reason that the litigants should have a fair idea about the pending litigation so that they may arrange their affairs and decide the future course of action. In “State of Bihar v. Kalika Kuer” (2003) 5 SCC 448 the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under: “10……. This is necessary also for the reason that the litigants should have a fair idea about the pending litigation so that they may arrange their affairs and decide the future course of action. In “State of Bihar v. Kalika Kuer” (2003) 5 SCC 448 the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under: “10……. an earlier decision may seem to be incorrect to a Bench of a coordinate jurisdiction considering the question later, on the ground that a possible aspect of the matter was not considered or not raised before the court or more aspects should have been gone into by the court deciding the matter earlier but it would not be a reason to say that the decision was rendered per incuriam and liable to be ignored. The earlier judgment may seem to be not correct yet it will have the binding effect on the later Bench of coordinate jurisdiction. Easy course of saying that earlier decision was rendered per incuriam is not permissible and the matter will have to be resolved only in two ways — either to follow the earlier decision or refer the matter to a larger Bench to examine the issue, in case it is felt that earlier decision is not correct on merits. ……….” 12. The direction in “Basudeo Rana” for payment of compensation equal to the amount of land acquisition was binding on the writ Court. The power to award compensation is inherent in every Court. A litigant who takes frivolous and unreasonable stand in a Court of law must be saddled with cost to compensate the other party and the amount of cost must be such that the litigant must think twice before putting forth a speculative or unreasonable defence in the Court. 13. In “Salem Advocate Bar Assn. (II) v. Union of India” (2005) 6 SCC 344 the Hon’ble Supreme Courtheldas under: “37. Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that manyun scrupulous parties take advantage of the fact that either the costs are not awarded or nominal costs are awarded against the unsuccessful party. Unfortunately, it has become a practice to direct parties to bear their own costs. In a large number of cases, such an order is passed despite Section 35(2) of the Code. Such a practice also encourages the filing of frivolous suits. It also leads to the taking up of frivolous defences. Unfortunately, it has become a practice to direct parties to bear their own costs. In a large number of cases, such an order is passed despite Section 35(2) of the Code. Such a practice also encourages the filing of frivolous suits. It also leads to the taking up of frivolous defences. Further, wherever costs are awarded, ordinarily the same are not realistic and are nominal. When Section 35(2) provides for cost to follow the event, it is implicit that the costs have to be those which are reasonably incurred by a successful party except in those cases where the court in its discretion may direct otherwise by recording reasons therefor. The costs have to be actual reasonable costs including the cost of the time spent by the successful party, the transportation and lodging, if any, or any other incidental costs besides the payment of the court fee, lawyer's fee, typing and other costs in relation to the litigation. It is for the High Courts to examine these aspects and wherever necessary make requisite rules, regulations or practice direction so as to provide appropriate guidelines for the subordinate courts to follow.” 14. For the foregoing reasons, these Letters Patent Appeals are dismissed. 15. I.A No. 3554 of 2024 in L.P.A. No. 68 of 2024 is disposed of and I.A. No. 2974 of 2024 in L.P.A. No. 151 of 2024 is closed.