STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. SHRI RIAZ AHMAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court from the judgment of this Court dated the 21st August, 1961.

(2.) SHRI Riaz Ahmad and 39 others claimed shares in the Jagir village Baneori, girdawari Circle Srinagar, Tehsil Ajmer, and they claimed compensation for resumption of their interest in the Jagir in accordance with the provisions of the ajmer Abolition of Intermediaries and Land Reforms Act, 1955 (No. III of 1955 ). The Collector of Ajmer objected to these claims on the ground that the shares should be treated as one unit for determination of compensation under the Act and that the compensation should not be assessed by treating them as separate estates. The Compensation Commissioner upheld the objection of the Collector and proceeded to determine the amount of compensation by treating the village to be one estate. Riaz Ahmad and 39 others came in appeal to this Court from the order of the Compensation Commissioner, which was allowed, and it was held that they were entitled to compensation on the basis of their individual shares in the village. The case was accordingly remanded to the Compensation Commissioner for determination of the amounts of compensation. The State has filed this application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court from the said order of remand.

(3.) IT is urged that the total amount of compensation payable in the case is more than Rs. 20,000/- and the value of the subject-matter of the appeal is consequently more than Rs. 20,000/ -. It is therefore claimed that the State is entitled, as a matter of right, to go in appeal to the Supreme Court from the judgment of this Court. As regards the question whether the order of this Court can be construed to be a final one within the meaning of Article 133 (1) (a), it is contended that the rights of the parties have been finally determined by the said order and that it only remains to calculate the amounts of compensation and so the order is, in substance, a final one. The decisions of the Supreme Court in S. Gurdwara Praban-dhak Committee v. Shiv Ratan Deo, (S) AIR 1955 SC 576 Finn ramchand Manjimal v. Firm Gover-dhandas Vishandas Ratanchand AIR 1920 PC 86 and M. Venkayya v. P. Venkatarama Rao, AIR 1956 Andhra 126 have been cited in support of the above contention.