MOHTA, J. - (1.) THERE above mentioned special appeals are directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 6. 8. 2001 passed in S. B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 571 of 1999 along with 69 other connected appeals mentioned in the schedule `a' annexed with the judgment, whereby, the learned Single Judge has allowed the appeals holding that the claimants are not entitled to claim solatium and the additional amount of 12 percent per annum as awarded by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Chittorgarh Reference Court vide its judgment dated 13. 7. 1998 along with applications under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the appeals. Later on, the delay was condoned vide order dated 2. 7. 2003 by this Court.
(2.) SINCE common questions of fact and law are involved in the aforesaid appeals, therefore, these appeals are finally heard together and are disposed of by a common judgment for the sake of convenience. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. The facts, in brief, relating to the matter are that the land of the private agriculturists situated at village Putholi and Ajoliyon Ka Khera, Tehsil Gangrar, District Chittorgarh (Rajasthan) was required to be acquired for the purpose of Hindustan Zinc Limited ``the Company''. For that purpose, notifications under Sections 4 (1) and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 were published on 8. 6. 83 and 3. 8. 83 respectively. Notices under Sec. 9 of the said Act were also issued to the concerned agriculturists (some of them are appellants-non- petitioners) to submit their claims. It appears from the record that during acquisition proceedings long negotiations took place between the land- holders, their Advocates and representatives of the Company. A seven persons' Committee was constituted and a meeting was called which was presided over by Shri Narpat Singh Chauhan, who was Revenue Appellate Authority at that time. Thereafter a written agreement was drawn on 26. 11. 1988 in the share of a compromise, which was finally accepted by the parties and was placed on record as Ex. A/1. It is also revealed from the record that the Land Acquisition Officer, after satisfaction, passed the award on the basis of the compromise Ex. A/1 but he did not award solatium payable under Sec. 23 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short `the Act of 1894') and also did not award additional amount calculated at the rate of 12 percent per annum as per Sec. 23 (1- A) of the Act of 1894. Therefore, applications were submitted by some of the agriculturist-claimants before the Land Acquisition Officer stating therein that the agriculturist-claimants are accepting the award amount under protest and requested the Land Acquisition Officer to either award the amount of solatium and interest or sent the dispute to the Civil Court under Sec. 18 of the Act of 1984. It appears from the record that the Land Acquisition Officer after considering the matter rejected the applications for making reference under Sec. 18 of the said Act and held that the amount which has been awarded in the award is inclusive of solatium and additional amount and, therefore, decided that the agriculturist-claimants are not entitled for any additional amount vide order dated 4. 8. 1989. The agriculturist-claimants challenged the said order of the Land Acquisition Officer dated 4. 8. 89 before this Court by way of writ petitions. It appears that in this respect S. B. Civil Writ petition No. 180 of 1990 and other 35 connected writ petitions were allowed on 23. 3. 1990 and the matters were directed to be referred to the Civil Court under Sec. 18 of the Act of 1894.
(3.) THEREFORE the matters were referred to the Civil Court under Sec. 18 of the said Act to the Reference Court Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Chittorgarh. The learned reference court after concluding the proceedings vide order dated 13. 7. 98 held that amount of solatium and additional amount are not included in the amount agreed upon in the compromise Ex. A/1 the basis of award. hence the learned reference court Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) Chittorgarh held the the agriculturist-claimants are entitled to the amount 30 percent solatium and an additional amount at the rate of 12 percent per annum. Thereafter, by separate order dated 9. 10. 98, the learned reference court determined the amount for each claimant. Thereafter against the judgment of the learned reference court Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Chittorgarh dated 13. 7. 98, the respondent No. 1-Hindustan Zinc Limited preferred separate appeals under Sec. 54 of the Act of 1894 before this court. All the appeals were heard together by the learned Single Judge as the common questions of fact and law were involved and while holding that the award of solatium and additional amount awarded by the learned reference court was contrary to law, set aside the order and allowed all the appeals vide judgment dated 6. 8. 2001 filed by respondents No. 1-Hindustan Zinc Limited. Against this, the present special appeals under Sec. 18 of the High Court Ordinance have been filed by the agriculturist-claimants. Notices were issued to the respondents. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the appellants while challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court submitted that admittedly, the appellants' land was acquired for respondent No. 1 and in that respect, a written compromise dated 26. 11. 88 was entered into between the parties, which is on record as Ex. A/1 but that was only with regard to the cost of land and not for any other matter like the statutorily payable solatium or additional amount or other benefits awardable under Sec. 23 (2) and 23 (1-A) of the Act of 1894. The learned counsel for the appellants again submitted that the amount mentioned in the compromise dated 26. 11. 88 was not inclusive of statutorily awardable solatium at the rate of 30 percent and additional amount at the rate of 12 percent per annum and other benefits. ;