ORDER :-A common point arises for consideration in these two revisions. Hence, they are disposed of through a common order.

2. The lands of the respondents in the CRPs are acquired, under the Land Acquisition Act, for short "the Act", for public purpose. Awards were passed, and not being satisfied with the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, the respondents sought for Reference, under Section 18 of the Act. Compensation was enhanced by the trial Courts, to certain extent, and in the appeals, this Court enhanced the same further. One of the controversies was as to whether the respondents are entitled to the benefit under Section 23(1-A) of the Act. The Reference Court extended the said benefit, and it was affirmed by this Court, in the appeal.

3. The respondents filed E.P. No. 16 of 1997 (Civil Revision Petition No.1 028 of 2006) and E.P. No.37 of 2000 (Civil Revision Petition No.4573 of 2006), claiming the balance of compensation. In the calculation memo, the respondents included the amount payable under Section 23(l-A) of the Act. In the said EPs, the petitioners, i.e., the Land Acquisition Officer, raised an objection as to the extension of the benefit under Secti

Click Here to Read the rest of this document