JUDGMENT :

P. R. Ramachandra Menon, J.

1. — “Can the same property, which was part of the subject matter of acquisition under the old Act i.e. the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Act, 1956') and handed over to the Appellant two decades ago, where a Plant is set up by the Appellant, after effecting mutation in the revenue records, could now be proposed to be acquired afresh under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 2013'); that too at the instance of the erstwhile lessees, who had acquired no title/ownership rights over the land that was remaining as Government land ?”

— “Is the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge, directing to initiate proceedings to correct the 'errors' under Section 89 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the LRC, 1959') and thereafter propose to acquire the land after obtaining orders from the State Government, complete the acquisition proceedings and pay compensation to the aforesaid lessees, who filed the writ petition in the year 2016 (i.e. after 22 years of the expiry of the lease period), is bad in law, allegedly for having obtained it playing fraud on the Court by not revealing the actual nature of assignment ?”

— “Is there any fault or lapse on the part of the Appellant or the Acquisitioning Authority, to be compensated in any manner, despite the callous inaction on the part of the erstwhile lessees/writ Petitioners ?”

— “Can the erstwhile lessees of the property, who approached the Court by filing writ petition for paying compensation as given to the other similarly situated persons, after 22 years of the expiry of the lease and after 15 years of taking over the possession, who had not taken any steps to get 'title' over the property, be placed on a better pedestal, paying higher compensation than the compensation payable and paid to similar lessees who had satisfied the conditions of the lease and obtained clear ownership rights over the property well on time ?”

— “Is the Appellant, having satisfied the compensation and has effected 50% more, as a gesture of goodwill and policy, also offering employment as given to the other lessees (who had actually become the owners) is liable to pay anything more to the Respondents No. 3 to 8 in the WA No.641/2018 ?”

These are the puzzles put forth, to be resolved by this Court in respect of the dispute raised in the above matters.

2. The Appellant in WA No. 641/2018 and the Petitioner in the WPC No.2390/2018 are the same. The challenge in the appeal is against the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge in WPC No.867/2016; whereas the challenge in the WPC is against the State/Authorities in proceeding with steps for acquisition of the same property (which was subject matter of Land Acquisition proceedings earlier, under the Old Act) in terms of the provision of the New Act i.e. the Act, 2013, purportedly in compliance of the direction given by the learned Single Judge in WPC No.867/2016.

3. We heard Mr. K. Raghavacharyulu, the learned counsel appearing for the Appellant/Writ Petitioner (National Mineral Development Corporation Limited) in the above proceedings (for convenience, we refer to them as 'NMDC') and Mr. B.P. Sharma, the learned counsel appearing for the private Respondents who had filed WPC No.867/2016 (referred to as “Claimants” for easy reference). We also heard Mr. Sudeep Agrawal, the learned Deputy Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State/Authorities concerned.

4. The Claimants belong to a remote Village-Nagarnaar of Jagdalpur Tehsil, in the Bastar District in the State of Chhattisgarh. They claim that they/ their respective predecessors were owners of the land having an extent of above 5 acres each in Khasra Nos. 85/1 (part) and 130/1 (part) or in 376/1 (pa