IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C. REV. No.147 of 2010 1. Gorakh Nath Singh 2. Tribhuvan Nath Singh Both sons of Late Anirudh Singh All Resident of Village- Jasoiya, P.S. & District-Aurangabad (Bihar) ….Respondents/Petitioners. Versus 1. The State of Bihar through Collector, Aurangabad. 2. The Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority through its Managing Director. …….Appellants/Opposite Parties. 3. Talukraj Devi W/o Late Parasnath Singh 4. Ramjee Singh S/o Late Parasnath singh Opposite parties no.3 & 4 are resident of village Jasoiya, P.O. + P.S.+ District-Aurangabad. ----------- For the appellants :Mr.D.K.Singh, Senior Advocate with Mr. Birendra Kumar Singh, Advocate. For respondent no.1 : Mr. Aditya Nath Pandey, A.C. to G.A.-5. For respondent no.2 : Mr. Lalit Kishore, Senior Advocate. For respondent nos.3 & 4 : Mr. Rajnish Kumar, Advocate. -------- 08/ 05.01.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners learned counsel for the State of Bihar and learned counsel for the Bihar Industrial Development Authority. Respondents no. 3 and 4 have appeared and have supported the claim of the petitioners as is apparent from order dated 01.10.2010. 2. This petition has been filed for reviewing, recalling, setting aside and modifying judgment dated 28.04.2010 passed in F.A.No.84 of 1997 after fresh consideration and perusal of records. 3. By the aforesaid judgment dated 28.04.2010 a Bench of this Court allowed in part 57 First Appeals, including F.A.No.84 of 1997 and dismissed cross-appeals filed therein. 4. All the aforesaid First Appeals, including F.A.No.84 of 1997 were filed by the State of Bihar against common judgment - 2 - dated 24.09.1996 and separate awards passed by Subordinate Judge-I, Aurangabad allowing several land acquisition cases filed by the awardees, including petitioners L.A. Reference Case No.25 of 1990. 5. It transpires that the lands in question were acquired by the State of Bihar for the purpose of Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority (BIADA), but BIADA was neither made party in the land acquisition cases nor was impleaded in the aforesaid First Appeals and hence BIADA being a necessary party filed intervener applications for being added as a party to the First Appeals. Thereafter a Bench of this Court while retaining the First Appeals asked the lower court to decide only on the point of quantum and valuation after hearing BIADA. The said issue was decided by the court below in favour of the claimants and the findings were sent to the High Court against which the State of Bihar as well as BIADA filed objections. However, BIADA was added as co-appellant in the First Appeals which were finally allowed in part and the cross-appeals were dismissed by a Bench of this court vide order under review dated 28.04.2010. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners, who were respondents in the First Appeal and were awardees in the court below, challenged the said order claiming that there were error apparent on the face of the record as altogether there were 57 First Appeals which were decided by the common judgment, but the learned Single Judge decided all those appeals on the basis of facts - 3 - of only one of the appeals which is apparent from the judgment under review itself. It is also claimed by learned counsel for the petitioners that lands of all the awardees of various First Appeals were differently situated and the valuation were also different and hence there was no occasion for deciding all the appeals after considering the facts of only one appeal. He further argued that First Appeals cannot be legally decided in such a hurried manner as it required full appreciation of facts, pleadings, evidence and the principles of law applicable to the respective claim of the parties and only thereafter any decision could have been legally arrived at in such appeals. It is also their claim that the cross-appeals filed by the petitioners in the First Appeals have not been considered at all and only at the end of the judgment a vague and baseless order was passed that the cross-appeals were dismissed although it was the duty of the court to pass such order only after considering the cross appeals in detail especially in view of the facts and circumstances of this case. 7. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this court finds merit in the arguments made by learned counsel for the petitioner and also finds the aforesaid error apparent on the face of the record of the judgment sought to be reviewed. Accordingly, this civil review petition is allowed and the judgment under question is hereby reviewed and recalled. 8. In view of the decisions of the Supreme court in case of U.P.Awas Even Vikas Parishad v. Gyan Devi, reported in - 4 - (1995) 2 SCC 326 and in case of Abul Razzak v. Kerala Water Authority, reported in (2002) 3 SCC 228 and also in view of the order passed by the Supreme court in Civil Appeal No.2780 of 1998, this matter is remitted to the Reference Court for fresh consideration of the matter on the basis of pleadings and evidence of the parties as well as the settled principles of law. 9. Since the matter is very old, the Land Acquisition Judge, Aurangabad is directed to expedite the hearing and disposal of the land acquisition case without giving any undue adjournment to any of the parties and must decide the case in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within a period of nine months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 10. Let the lower court records of L. A. Reference Case No.25 of 1990, which is part of records of L. A. Reference Case No.19 of 1990 which is kept in F.A.No.88 of 1997 be immediately sent to the Land Acquisition Judge, namely Subordinate Judge-I, Aurangabad. Sunil (S. N. Hussain, J.)