<p style="text-align: center;"><strong><u>JUDGMENT</u></strong></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>HEWARD MILLS J</strong>. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">On the admission of the parties, the first defendant was granted a mining lease over a large area of land, including the farm of the plaintiff. Upon entry onto the land, an assessment of all the plaintiff&#x27;s crops was made, recorded and signed by him and the assessor. On 9 January 1996 the plaintiff received compensation to the tune of ¢30,584,831. He is now, suing to be compensated for the acquisition of the land.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The court accepts that the acquisition of land and payment of compensation thereunder is quite distinct from the acquisition of mining rights and the ensuing right to be compensated. For whereas the former is governed by article 20 of the Constitution, 1992, it is the Mineral and Mining Law, 1986 (PNDCL 153) which regulates the latter.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">This distinction is made clear by section 2 of PNDCL 153 which states:</p><blockquote><p style="text-align: justify;">&quot;2. Where any land is required to secure the development or utilization of a mineral resource the council may acquire the land or authorize its occupat…</p></blockquote>