ORDER
1. Both the appeals have been preferred by the State against the judgment dated 21st September, 1998 and the award dated 3rd November, 1990, passed by the Land Acquisition Judge, Chas, in L.A. Reference Case Nos. 360 of 1976 and 1 of 1989.
2. The lands, in question, were acquired by the State in the year, 1960-61 in favour of the Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro. A number of awards were prepared in favour of different claimants and many of them, being dissatisfied with the award amount, moved for reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. On similar issues, judgments having already been delivered by Division Bench of this Court (Ranchi Bench of Patna High Court), following those judgments, the Land Acquisition Judge answered the two reference in favour of the claimants and held that the claimants are entitled for compensation at the rate of Rs. 8,000/- per Acre for paddy land and Rs. 6,000/- per Acre for Gora land. The judgment of the Division Bench, on the basis of which references were answered, related to some other lands, acquired by the State for same purpose in favour of the Bokaro Steel Plant, at that relevant point of time. The Division Bench’s judgment, not having been challenged by the State before the Supreme Court, has already reached finality. The appeals, which are pending before the High Court for about fifteen years, could not be taken up due to pendency of large number of cases and shortage of Judges.
3. Before division of the State of Bihar, a decision was taken that where compensation amaunt does not exceed Rs. 25,000/-, no appeal should be preferred by the State and the appeal(s), already preferred, should be withdrawn. After creation of the State of Jharkhand, similar decision was taken by the State of Jharkhand from its Water Resources Development Department vide letter No. 14/03-OA-43/2002: -3002. Ranchi dated 19th September, 2002. The State of Jharkhand also decided not to prefer any appeal where compensation amount does not exceed Rs. 25,000/- and to withdraw the appeal(s), if preferred against such judgment(s) and award(s). Such decision were been taken in public interest.
4. Section 89 was inserted by Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1999 with effect from 1st July, 2002 and provision was made enabling the Court to find out, if there exists element of settlement, which may be acceptable to the parties, to formulate the terms of settlement and give them to the parties for their observation and after receiving the observation of the parties, to formulate the terms of a possible settlement and to refer the same for settlement through alternative forum for resolution (Alternative Dispute Resolution- ADR).
5. The Jharkhand High Court Legal Services Authority has intended to hold a Lok Adalat on 7th May, 2006. To find out whether appeals, pending against the orders, passed in Land Acquisition Cases, can be settled outside the Court in Lok Adalat, step was taken under Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the learned Single Judge (one of us – M.Y. Eqbal, J.), it having come to the notice of the Court that there are large number of cases where lands were acquired about 40-45 years back and the matter has not yet been settled because of large number of appeals, preferred by the State, irrespective of the quantum of compensation amount, awarded to the claimants-land losers. Considering the fact that the lands were acquired in the year, 1961-62 and the Land Acquisition Judge, besides determining the compensation amount, also directed to pay additional compensation at the rate of 12% on the market value from the date of notification, issued about fifty years back i.e. on 10th August, 1956 and the solatium at the rate of 30% on the market value as also the further interest at the rate of 9% and 15%, as provided under Section 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, the learned Single Judge was of the view that the matter should be settled before the Lok Adalat.
6. Public interest being involved and as the State spends the money for fighting out litigations and if the case is not decided immediately and ultimately the case is lost, the State is to cough huge amount, which ultimately burdens the public exchequer, so the case was referred by learned Single Judge to Division Bench for hearing and the Chief Secretary, Revenue Secretary, Finance Commissioner, Secretary, Water Resources Development Department Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi, as also the Agriculture Secretary were directed to appear before the Court to answer at to why they be not ready to comply with the mandate of the Parliament, as contemplated under Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and the similar mandate of the Supreme Court. The aforesaid officers appeared today but shown inability for settlement outside the Court.
7. One of us (M.Y. Eqbal, J.) while referring the appeals to the Division Bench noticed that the present matter is pending for last 45 years and in the event, the appeals fail, the State will have to pay ten times more than the amount of compensation, assessed by the Land Acquisition Judge. This fact was brought to the notice of the State authorities, who are present in the Court, and it was suggested to compromise the matter and to withdraw the appeals in cases, where compensation amount has been awarded up to Rs. 1,00,000/- which may ultimately be in the financial interest of the State. It was brought to their notice that even if the appellate Court interferes with the order, passed by the Land Acquisition Judge, the total compensation amount will not be set aside and, at best, the compensation amount may be brought down and above 70 to 80 percent of the compensation amount may have to be paid. In that case also, if the State contests the cases and they remain pending for about 45 years and 70 to 80 percent of the awarded compensation is paid with additional compensation, solatium and interest, as provided under Section 23(2), in such case after about 40 to 45 years, the State will have to bear much more amount than the amount, if the original compensation amount would have been paid 45 years back, without contesting the cases.
8. Inspite of the aforesaid discussions, no cooperation having been made by the State authorities and as the learned Advocate General also failed to pursue the State authorities and did not agree for settlement, we are of the view that apart from decision of the cases on merit, it may be determined “whether in public interest the State should contest the case up to appellate stage, If the amount of compensation does not exceed. Rs. l,00,000/- and if the matter remains pending for more than five years in a Court of law.”
9. Parties should be ready for hearing on merit and on the issue, as framed above,
10. Let both the cases be listed for further hearing under the heading ‘for orders’ on 12th May. 2006.