ORDER : 1. The application for setting aside abatement is allowed. 2. The application for substitution is also allowed. 3. Cause-title be amended accordingly. 4. Leave granted. 5. The subject land, situated within the revenue estate of Kaisre-Hind in village Sarley, District Hazaribagh, was decided to be acquired for the public purpose, namely, for its development under the Bihar Housing Board Act, 1982. The acquisition was to be made in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the old Act'). Unfortunately, the possession of the disputed land, measuring 10.40 acres, was taken, handed over to the appellant-Board and utilised for the purported public purpose without determining any compensation. 6. There was a collateral dispute regarding 'raiyati' rights asserted by the appellants over the subject land and their claim was acknowledged by the Civil Court in Title Suit No. 24/1985 with a direction to the appellant-Board to determine the compensation amount. An appeal was filed against that judgment and decree, which too was decided in favour of the respondent-land owners confirming their raiyati rights with a direction for payment of compensation within six months. These orders were passed on 27.10.2004 and 12.01.2005, respectively. 7. Instead of approaching an appropriate forum, known under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for determining compensation, it seems that the respondent-land owners were advised to file Execution Case No. 2/2008 pursuant to the above-stated decree in their favour, in which they sought restoration of the disputed land on the ground that no compensation was paid to them. At that juncture, the appellant-Board deposited a sum of Rs.1,97,96,560/-(Rupees One Crore, Ninety Seven Lakhs, Ninety Six Thousand, Five Hundred and Sixty) on 03.10.2008. The appellant-Board also filed a Second Appeal against the above-mentioned judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court, which was dismissed by the High Court on 29.07.2009. SLP(C)No. 20205/2009, filed before this Court against the order of the High Court, met with the same fate on 15.12.2009. 8. After the title dispute attained finality in favour of the private respondents, the Executing Court eventually ordered the appellant-Board to deposit a sum of Rs.56,10,30,107/- (Rupees Fifty Six Crores, Ten Lakhs, Thirty Thousand, One Hundred and Seven) as compensation for the subject land within six months. 9. 8. After the title dispute attained finality in favour of the private respondents, the Executing Court eventually ordered the appellant-Board to deposit a sum of Rs.56,10,30,107/- (Rupees Fifty Six Crores, Ten Lakhs, Thirty Thousand, One Hundred and Seven) as compensation for the subject land within six months. 9. Instead of challenging that order before any judicial forum, the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh claims to have assessed the compensation for the disputed land to the tune of Rs.66,22,650/- (Rupees Sixty Six Lakhs, Twenty Two Thousand, Six Hundred and Fifty). 10. Thus, there are now two orders, one of the Executing Court, determining compensation of Rs.56,10,30,107/- (Rupees Fifty Six Crores, Ten Lakhs, Thirty Thousand, One Hundred and Seven), and the second by the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh determining compensation of Rs.66,22,650/- (Rupees Sixty Six Lakhs, Twenty Two Thousand, Six Hundred and Fifty), for the same land. 11. The appellant-Board then approached the High Court against the order of the Executing Court. The High Court has dismissed the appellant's Writ Petition, observing that the respondents' right qua ownership already stood determined and has attained finality upto this Court, and that the case cannot be reopened. 12. The aggrieved Board has approached this Court by way of instant appeals. 13. While issuing notice, further proceedings before the Executing Court were stayed until further orders vide interim order dated 11.07.2023. 14. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the material placed on record. 15. The High Court seems to be right in law in holding to the extent that the ownership rights of the private respondents have already been determined upto this Court with the dismissal of SLP(C)No. 20205/2009 on 15.12.2009. The title dispute, thus, cannot be reopened. However, the High Court fell in error in overlooking the fact that the compensation for the subject land had not been determined by an authority known under the provisions of the old Act, or under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short, 2013 Act'). The settled position is that, after complying with the mandatory statutory procedure, the Land Acquisition Collector would assess the market value and pass an award. The aggrieved land owner can seek further enhancement in compensation through a Reference under Section 18 of the old Act or Section 64 of the 2013 Act. The settled position is that, after complying with the mandatory statutory procedure, the Land Acquisition Collector would assess the market value and pass an award. The aggrieved land owner can seek further enhancement in compensation through a Reference under Section 18 of the old Act or Section 64 of the 2013 Act. Thus, the passing of an award by the Land Acquisition Collector is a sine qua non for the payment of compensation, followed by the enhancement, if any, by the Reference Court or any other superior court. 16. Unfortunately, no such procedure appears to have been followed in the instant case. In such circumstances, we deem it appropriate to invoke our powers under Article 142 of the Constitution and dispose of these appeals with the following directions: (i) The compensation amount of Rs.1,97,96,560/- (Rupees One Crore, Ninety Seven Lakhs, Ninety Six Thousand, Five Hundred and Sixty), deposited by the appellant-Board, is ordered to be treated as an 'award' passed by the Land Acquisition Collector for all intents and purposes, without prejudice to the rights of the parties. (ii) The aforesaid amount shall be released to the respondents without prejudice to the rights of the parties, and subject to their furnishing adequate security qua 50% thereof. In other words, the remaining 50% amount shall be released to the respondents unconditionally. The needful shall be done within four weeks. (iii) The private respondents, namely, the land owners shall, within four weeks, file a Reference before the Reference Court-cum-Prescribed Authority under the 2013 Act. The said Reference Court after permitting the parties to lead their respective evidence, shall make an endeavour to decide the reference-claim within a period of six months from the date of filing of such claim. (iv) Since the private respondents have been denied compensation for all these years and, meanwhile, the old Act has been repealed and the 2013 Act has come into force, the Reference Court is directed to determine compensation in accordance with the provisions of the 2013 Act. (v) The order dated 03.02.2018, passed by the Executing Court, as well as the order dated 24.05.2018, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh, contained in letter No.626/B.A. - both are set aside. (vi) The Reference Court-cum-Prescribed Authority shall determine the market value and consequential compensation, payable to the private respondents, uninfluenced of the contents of the above-mentioned two orders, which have since been set aside. 17. (vi) The Reference Court-cum-Prescribed Authority shall determine the market value and consequential compensation, payable to the private respondents, uninfluenced of the contents of the above-mentioned two orders, which have since been set aside. 17. As a necessary corollary, the impugned judgment of the High Court dated 28.03.2022 is also set aside. 18. The appeals stand disposed of in the above terms. 19. The pending interlocutory applications also stand disposed of.