JUDGMENT:

G.P. MATHUR, J.

1. Leave granted in special leave petitions.

2. These appeals, by special leave, have been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 1.9.1999 of Madhya Pradesh High Court by which the appeals filed by the landholders and also by the Union of India were dismissed.

3. The Government of India issued notifications under Sections 4(1) and 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the `Act) for acquisition of large area of land (4827.63 hectares) situate in various villages in Tehsil Mhow, District Indore for establishing two firing ranges, namely, Bercha and Hema for the artillery wing of the army. An area of 2917.160 hectares was acquired for Bercha Firing Range and 1910.464 hectares for Hema Firing Range. After receipt of notice under Section 9 of the Act, the landholders submitted objections. The Collector, Indore, after considering the objections of the landholders and making relevant inquiry, gave an Award regarding the compensation which was to be paid to the landholders. The landholders being dissatisfied with the Award of the Collector asked for a reference to be made to the court in accordance with Section 18 of the Act. The reference court after taking into consideration the evidence adduced by the parties gave an Award. It awarded compensation @ Rs.58,000 per hectare for unirrigated and uncultivable land and Rs.88,000 per hectare for irrigated land in Bercha Firing Range. With regard to Hema Firing Range compensation was awarded @ Rs.40,000 per hectare for uncultivable land, Rs.58,000 per hectare for unirrigated land and Rs.88,000 per hectare for irrigated land. The landholders and also the Union of India preferred appeals against the Award of the reference court before the High Court. The High Court decided all the appeals by a common order, which is the subject-matter of challenge in the present appeals. The High Court passed a short order and the relevant part of the judgment dealing with the controversy is reproduced below: -

"5. We would have very much liked to examine the merit of rival contentions, but it would serve the interests of none. It could only prolong the agony of petty land-holders without resulting in the gain to union coffers. Assuming appeals filed by the Union were to be allowed, it could prove futile because compensation amount awarded by reference court stood paid or was in the process of being paid to land holders under the orders of this court with little or no prospects of its recovery. Similarly if land-holders plea was to be entertained, it could entail remand to the reference court and protract the proceedings for years on to their disadvantage and detriment. Therefore taking all this into consideration and given regard to the interest of both parties we deem it appropriate to end this litigation in "let be gones be gones" spirit, because adverting to the issues raised by the parties would have opened Pandoras Box resulting in unending litigation causing avoidable hardship and inconvenience more particularly to poor land-holders who have reportedly gone through considerable sufferings during the last 11 years for the sake of National Defence. This is not to shy away from taking the adjudication to logical end but to terminate the litigation to the mutual advantage and benefit of both sides."

4. Learned counsel for both the sides have submitted that the High Court has not at all considered the evidence on record and has decided the appeals by a short and cryptic order which shows a total non application of mind. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the parties that the matter requires fresh consideration in the light of evidence which has been adduced by the parties.

5. Section 54 of the Act, insofar as relevant for the purposes of the present appeals, says that subject to the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, applicable to appeals from original decrees, and notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any enactment