ORDER : (NELSON SAILO, J.) [1.] Heard Mr. C Lalramzauva, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. StephenLalbuatsaiha for the petitioners in both the writ petitions. Also heard Mr. Samuel Vanlalhriata Chhangte, learned Addl. Advocate General for the Staterespondents. Ms. Zairemsangpuii, learned CGC for the respondent Union ofIndia and Mr. Roshan Subedi, learned counsel for respondent No. 5 EngineeringProjects (India) Limited (EPIL). Since the issue involved in both the writpetitions are similar, they are being disposed of by this common Jugment &Order. [2.] The petitioners in both the cases are aggrieved for not having been given solatium and interest in terms of Section 23(1A) & (2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (LA Act) apart from the compensation amount. The petitioners in WP(C) No. 75/2019 were given compensation as per Draft Award No. 3/2009 for acquisition of their land for the purpose of Indo-Bangla Border Road-cum- Fencing. As for the petitioners in WP(C) No. 76/2019, they were given compensation as per Draft Award No. 3/2007 for acquisition of their land for the same purpose. Both set of writ petitioners have however not been given any amount towards solatium and interest in terms of the relevant provisions of the L.A Act. [3.] The amount that has been assessed by the District Collector concerned was duly approved by the State Government in the Land Revenue & Settlement Department and thereafter, the same was sanctioned and paid to the respective land owners. Therefore, there are no dispute from any quarter about the compensation and the only grievance raised by the instant writ petitioners is that they are entitled to receive solatium and interests which they have been deprived of. [4.] Mr. C Lalramzauva, learned Senior Counsel submits that the petitioners cannot be deprived of their entitlement to solatium and interests in view of the fact that it is already a settled law that even if a reference application is not filed by the land owners concerned, a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for claiming such benefit would be maintainable. In this connection, the learned Senior Counsel refers to the Judgment & Order dated 24.04.2019 rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in Reference Case No. 1/2017. In this connection, the learned Senior Counsel refers to the Judgment & Order dated 24.04.2019 rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in Reference Case No. 1/2017. The learned Senior Counsel submits that reference was made by a Single Bench of this Court in WP(C) No. 117/2015 on the question as to whether a writ petition claiming interest and solatium under the LA Act, which power vests with the Reference Court under Section 23(1A) & 23(2) would be maintainable in the absence of any reference being made to the Court in terms of Section 18 of the same Act and that too, when the petitioners have already accepted the awarded compensation. [5.] The learned Senior Counsel submits that the reference case was answered in the affirmative by the Division Bench, by holding that payment of interest and solatium is a statutory right and entitlement of a person interested and non-payment of such interest and solatium would be failure on the part of the Collector to discharge the statutory duty vested on him. If such failure has occasioned on the part of the public authority, a writ Court would certainly be well within its jurisdiction to issue a Writ of Mandamus to compel the public authority to discharge the statutory duty. The fact of existence of alternative remedy under Section 13(A) & 18 of the LA Act would not debar a writ Court from exercising such jurisdiction in an appropriate case. Such being the case, the learned Senior Counsel submits that the District Collector concerned may be directed to make the assessment towards solatium and interest payable to the petitioners and the amount assessed be directed to be deposited by the authority in whose favour the land had been acquired within a time frame for onward payment to the petitioners as per their share. [6.] The learned Senior Counsel further relies upon a decision rendered by this Court in WP(C) No. 156/2017, which was disposed of vide Order dated 08.11.2018 (Jogodish & 320 Ors. vs. State of Mizoram & 4 Ors.). Referring to the said order, the learned Senior Counsel submits that this Court, by taking into account the decision rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in Reference Case No. 1/2017 vide Judgment & Order dated 24.04.2017, found the petitioners therein entitled to be paid solatium and interest alongwith interest under Section 34 of the LA Act. Referring to the said order, the learned Senior Counsel submits that this Court, by taking into account the decision rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in Reference Case No. 1/2017 vide Judgment & Order dated 24.04.2017, found the petitioners therein entitled to be paid solatium and interest alongwith interest under Section 34 of the LA Act. Accordingly, the Court directed the Collector concerned to make the assessment and upon making such an assessment directed the assessment to be forwarded to the authority in whose favour the land was being acquired for making the deposit of the amount assessed within a time frame. [7.] The learned Senior Counsel submits that the said decision of the learned Single Judge was put to challenge before the Apex Court by the National Projects Construction Corporation Limited (NPCC) by filing SLP(C) No. 43460/2019. However, the Apex Court vide Order dated 04.01.2024 declined to interfere with the Judgment & Order of this Court and dismissed the SLP. He, therefore, submits that such being the position, this Court may allow the writ petition as prayed for by them, by passing suitable directions. [8.] Ms. Zairemsangpuii, learned CGC appearing for the respondent Union of India, by referring to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by them, submits that since the Collector had not determined the market value of the land and therefore, there cannot be any assessment or claim for payment of solatium and interest. She further submits that the petitioners in WP(C) No. 76/2019 had earlier filed L.A Case No. 1/2014 before the Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Lunglei District, Lunglei but the same was dismissed vide Order dated 18.09.2014 on the ground of limitation. She submits that the said order having not been challenged by the petitioners concerned, the instant writ petition claiming for similar benefit would not be maintainable. [9.] Mr. Roshan Subedi, appearing for the EPIL, submits that the entire amount that was awarded has already been paid to the petitioners without any objection and therefore, they are not entitled to make such a claim at this belated stage. He also submits that prior to filing of the instant writ petitions, the petitioners did not file any representation before the District Collector concerned and therefore, the alternative remedy available to them having not been exhausted, the writ petition should not be entertained by this Court. He also submits that prior to filing of the instant writ petitions, the petitioners did not file any representation before the District Collector concerned and therefore, the alternative remedy available to them having not been exhausted, the writ petition should not be entertained by this Court. He also submits that since the District Collector did not fix any market value for the land in question, the petitioners cannot claim for payment of solatium and interest in view of the fact that there are disputed question of fact. He thus submits that the writ petitions are not maintainable and they should be dismissed. In support of his submission, the learned counsel relies upon the following authorities:- (1) City and Industrial Development Corporation vs. Dosu Aardeshir Bhiwandiwala & Ors., (2009) 1 SCC 168 . (2) PHR Invent Educational Society vs. UCO Bank & Ors., 2024 (4) SCR 541 . (3) Judgment & Order dated 11.09.2023 passed by this Court in WP(C) No. 8/2021 (Shanti Kumar Chakma & 609 Ors. vs. Union of India & 11 Ors.). [10.] Be it stated herein that this matter was heard at some length on earlier occasion and this Court had directed the learned Government Advocate to produce the relevant records of Award No. 3/2007 and Award No. 3/2009. Mr. Samuel Vanlalhriata Chhangte, learned Addl. Advocate General, Mizoram, today has produced the said records. A perusal of the same goes to show that a copy of the Award in both the cases i.e., Award No. 3/2007 & Award No. 3/2009 are available but the list of beneficiaries and the assessment made for each individual are not found. It so appears that the assessment sheet and the list of beneficiaries at some point of time had been forwarded to the State Government in the Land Revenue & Settlement Department for obtaining approval. Perhaps, it is for that reason that the assessment sheet and list of beneficiaries are not available in the file. Be that as it may, the amount so assessed by the District Collector concerned and the approval given by the State Government to the award and the disbursement of the amount of compensation has not been disputed by any of the parties. Such being the case, there is no impediment in proceeding with the matter and considering the claim made by the petitioners. Such being the case, there is no impediment in proceeding with the matter and considering the claim made by the petitioners. However, slight variation in the actual amount awarded and the approval given in respect of Award No. 3/2009 is noticed. By Communication dated 11.05.2010, the approval of the said award was conveyed by the Under Secretary to the Govt. of Mizoram, Revenue Department to the Deputy Commissioner, Lunglei District, Lunglei stating that an amount of Rs. 3,24,27,674/- has been approved by excluding Rs. 59,682/- in respect of 16 (sixteen) persons, whose claims were found to be inadmissible to get the compensation. While such is the approval given, the Draft Award No. 3/2009 forwarded by the District Collector concerned is for an amount of Rs. 3,28,26,674/-. Be that as it may, this variation should not deter this Court from proceeding with the matter and that it will be addressed at a later part of this order. [11.] From the projection made by the petitioners, it is their case that their lands have been acquired for Indo-Bangla Border Road-cum-Fencing purposes and for which, the Collector had made an assessment for an amount of Rs. 9,66,53,019 through Draft Award No. 3/2007 and for an amount of Rs. 3,28,26,674/- through Award No. 3/2009. As already stated, approval for Award No. 3/2009 has been given for a sum of Rs. 3,24,27,674/-. The petitioners themselves have enclosed the assessment of compensation for the acquisition of their respective land which contains the name of the land owner, the fathers’ name, the Pass number, the amount claimed, the amount paid and the signature of the recipients of the compensation. As already stated, the amount of award has not been disputed by any of the parties and that the petitioners have all received payment of their due share in terms of the said award. [12.] An argument has been advanced on behalf of the respondents concerned that the petitioners had at an earlier point of time approached the Reference Court through L.A Case No. 1/2024 which, however, was disposed of vide Order dated 18.09.2014 on being barred by limitation. The Reference Court also took note of the fact that certain objections have been raised by the Village Council authorities regarding the authenticity of the Power of Attorney submitted by the petitioner who had filed the reference case. According to Mr. The Reference Court also took note of the fact that certain objections have been raised by the Village Council authorities regarding the authenticity of the Power of Attorney submitted by the petitioner who had filed the reference case. According to Mr. C Lalramzauva, learned Senior Counsel the petitioner who filed the reference case was not authorized to do so by any of the land owners concerned and therefore, the petitioners are not bound by the process availed by the unauthorized person as it is void ab initio. He submits that the principles of res judicata will also not apply since the reference application was not decided on merit. He submits that in view of what has been held by a Division Bench of this Court in Reference Case No. 1/2017, the petitioners cannot be deprived of their share of solatium and interest entitled to them as per LA Act. [13.] As already stated in the preceding paragraphs, a Division Bench of this Court in Reference Case No. 1/2017 (supra) held that payment of interest and solatium is a statutory right of person interested and for non-payment of the same a claim would be maintainable even by way of a writ petition and that the availability of alternative remedy under Section 13(A) & Section 18 of the LA Act would not debar a writ Court from exercising such jurisdiction in an appropriate case. As can be noticed, a person who was not authorized made a claim before the reference Court and the claim was rejected. Therefore in the considered view of this Court, the petitioners in WP(C) No. 75/2019 cannot be said to be debarred from making their claim and particularly by way of a writ petition in view of what has been decided in the said reference case i.e., Reference Case No. 1/2017. [14.] The decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the EPIL is on the other hand found to be not applicable to the instant case in view of the fact that there is no dispute with regard to the land of the petitioners being acquired by the respondent authorities concerned and the payment of compensation in lieu of such acquisition. The only question which may draw the attention of this Court is with regard to fixation of the market value. The only question which may draw the attention of this Court is with regard to fixation of the market value. A similar situation had arisen in another writ petition i.e., WP(C) No. 157/2017 (Ananto Bikash vs. State of Mizoram & 4 Ors.). This Court vide Judgment & Order dated 11.06.2019 under the given facts and circumstances of that case after finding that the market value of the land acquired had not been determined, directed the same to be determined by the District Collector concerned in terms of the situation that would have prevailed at the time when the acquisition was made. An observation was also made that such determination of a market value cannot be hypothetical or imaginary but should have a bearing to the assessment sheet of the award concerned where the Pass numbers and the amount claimed by the land owners are given. This Court has also been informed that pursuant to the direction passed in that case, the District Collector made the assessment and the amount has already been paid by the acquiring authority to the land owners. Therefore, this Court finds no difficulty in giving a similar direction to the respondent authorities concerned in the instant two cases as well. [15.] In view of what has been stated above, the District Collector, Lunglei District, Lunglei is directed to fix the market value of the land of the petitioners as would have prevailed at the time of making the assessment of the Award No. 3/2007 & Award No. 3/2009. Such determination should have a bearing to the assessment sheet of both the awards wherein the Pass numbers and the amount claimed by the respective land owners have been duly recorded. The Collector after arriving at the appropriate market value of the land shall compute the solatium and interest as payable to the petitioners under Section 23(1A) and Section 23(2) and also Section 34 of the LA Act. Such an exercise shall be carried out by the Collector as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. [16.] After such an assessment and computation is done by the Collector, the same shall be forwarded to the respondent Nos. 4 & 5 for sanction and arrangement of the fund required. The respondent Nos. [16.] After such an assessment and computation is done by the Collector, the same shall be forwarded to the respondent Nos. 4 & 5 for sanction and arrangement of the fund required. The respondent Nos. 4 & 5, thereafter, within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of the Collector’s assessment shall deposit the amount awarded before the District Collector, Lunglei District, Lunglei who shall disburse the same to the petitioners on proper identification and per usual formalities. [17.] Before parting with the records, it is provided herein that since the amount of compensation awarded in respect of Award No. 3/2009 and the amount approved by the Government has same variation, the District Collector shall examine this aspect while making the calculation and shall take into consideration the amount which had actually been disbursed to the land owners in making such an assessment. [18.] With the above observations and directions, the 2 (two) writ petitions are disposed of. No cost.