I.A. Ansari, J.

1. This review petition raises some important questions of law, namely, whether the market value of a land, which is acquisitioned under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, shall include, within the meaning of Section 23(1) thereof, the market value of the trees and crops standing thereon and if so, with reference to what date, the market value shall be determined and, further, whether the market value of the trees and crops, if any, shall be determined separately from, and independent of, the land, which is acquisitioned? Yet another important question, raised in this review petition, is: when a 'person interested', as defined by Section 3(b) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is aggrieved by an award on the ground that while granting compensation, various statutory components for determination of compensation have not been taken into account by the District Collector, whether he can seek a 'reference' to be made within the meaning of Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894?

2. This review petition, it may be noted, seeks review of the judgment and order, dated 05.08.2009, passed in Writ Appeal No. 31/2009, whereby the appeal has been dismissed affirming and upholding the judgment and order, dated 16.05.2008, passed in WP(C) No. 315/2007, which was filed by the present review Petitioner, namely, Fortuna Agro Plantations Ltd, a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, with its registered office at Kailashahar, North Tripura.

3. The material facts and various stages, which have led to the making of the present review petition, may, in a nutshell, be set out as follows:

(i) The Petitioner-company (hereinafter referred to as the 'review Petitioner') is the owner of a tea garden named Murticherra Tea Estate, situated at North Tripura, Kailashahar. An area of land, measuring 18.31 acres, belonging to the review-Petitioner's said tea garden, has been acquired by the Government by notification, dated 28-7-05, issued, under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to 'the L.A. Act'), for the purpose of construction of barbed wire fencing on the Indo-Bangaladesh border, and the requisite declaration was published, in this regard, on 30-8-2008, under Section 6 of the L.A. Act. Before, however, even the notification under Section 4(1) of the LA Act was issued, the National Building Construction Company (for short, 'the NBCC'), which was the executing agency for the said barbed wire fencing, had taken possession of the land, in question, as far back as on 11.10.2004.

(ii) Thereafter, a notice was issued, under the provisions of Section 9 of the L.A Act, requiring the owners of the acquired land to submit their claims for compensation on or before 20-10-2005. In response to the said notice, the review-Petitioner submitted its claim, on 20-10-2005, requesting an amount of Rs. 661,87,33,891/- to be awarded as compensation under various heads. However, the review-Petitioner, again, on 28-10-05, submitted a revised claim of Rs. 908,09,46,924/- requesting to pay compensation under Section 23(1A), solatium under Section 23(2)and statutory interest under Sections 28 and 34 of the L.A. Act, by contending that it (review Petitioner) was not making any extra claim save and except the statutory dues payable under Sections 23(1A), 23(2),28 and 34, which had not been correctly computed earlier, due to inadvertence, at the time of submitting the original claim on 20.10.2005.

4. At the time of acquisition of the land, belonging to the review Petitioner, a joint survey, on the said acquired land, as directed by the Addl. District Magistrate and Collector, had been conducted by the NBCC, which was the executing agency of the barbed wire fencing, in the presence of representatives of the review-Petitioner. In the said joint survey, it was found that there were, on the said acquired land, 13,630 numbers of trees covered by, and classified into, 42 species and 3,49,002 numbers of bamboo covered by 2 spec