LEELAWATI Vs. RAVI KHANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A piece of land measuring 1,110 acres was leased out by the appellants to respondents 1 and 2/07/1949, for a period of 20 years with a right of renewal for another period of equal duration. By Notification under S. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, dated 1/09/1951, the government of Uttar Pradesh notified the entire area for acquisition. Possession of the land was taken under S. 17 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act on 23/11/1951, and respondents Nos. 1 and 2 were dispossessed of the land.

(2.) On inquiry the Land Acquisition Officer assessed the compensation for the land at Rs. 81,851/7/ -. Against the award three applications were filed for reference under S. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The first numbered 7 was an application by the appellants; second and third numbered 8 and 9 were applications made by Respondents 1 and 2. By Reference No. 7 the appellants claimed compensation in addition to the amount awarded. By Reference 8 and 9 respondents No. 1 and 2 claimed additional compensation and apportionment of the compensation awarded for the land. The learned Civil Judge, Bijnor, who exercised jurisdiction of a district court under S. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, followed a somewhat curious procedure in dealing with the references on his file. He granted an application submitted by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 for adjournment of the hearing of references 8 and 9 and took up for hearing Reference No. 7 and awarded an amount of Rs. 24,415/3/6 in addition to the amount awarded by the Collector. The References Nos. 8 and 9 remained still to be decided. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 then moved a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before the High court of allahabad. The petition was rejected by Mr. Justice J. K. Tandon. Against that order an appeal was preferred under the Letters Patent in thehigh court. In appeal the High court set aside the order passed by the civil Judge and directed that the court do consolidate References Nos. 7, 8 and 9 and hear all the parties interested in the land and the Collector and dispose of the three References in accordance with law.

(3.) This was in our judgment an essentially just and proper order. The appellants thereafter persuaded the High court to grant a certificate under article 133 (1) (a) of the Constitution and this appeal is brought before this court under that certificate.