ORDER

1. Application for intervention is allowed.

2. Both these appeals can be disposed of by a common judgment. Both of them are against the judgment of the High Court dated 14-7-2000.

3. Briefly stated, the facts are as follows:

On 17-11-1987 there was a notification under Section 4 of the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948. The award came to be passed on 8-6-1988. The question is whether the claimants are entitled to compensation under Section 23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. This has been allowed by the High Court by the impugned judgment. The High Court has based this decision on another judgment in respect of other lands acquired under the same notification. We are fairly informed that the other party has been paid this additional amount as the special leave petition was

dismissed by this Court on the ground that it was barred by limitation. Thus, on the basis ofparity, the High Court was right in granting even in this case. We do not see any reason to interfere with the award. However, the High Court has also decided and held on merits that the amount is payable. This is a question of law which affects many cases and the law is thus required t