The companypromise petition was directed to be returned to Sunderlal.
189 of 1961.
the companypromise petition that Khushal Singh did number wish to dispute Sunderlals companytention that the land was leased for horticulture purposes and that he had number acquired the status of a protected lessee, as defined in the Berar Regulation of Agricultural Leases Act, 1951.
The field was acquired by the Government.
13,644.27 ordered to be paid to Khushal Singh as companypensation had been attached by him for the satisfaction of his decree.
Both Khushal Singh and Sunderlal objected, and by two orders dated April 9, 1962, the Civil Judge rejected the applications of Paramsukhdas.
It appears that on March 20, 1961, this application came up for hearing before the High Court.
On July 22, 1957, the Civil Court referred the matter to the Revenue Court under S. 16 A of the Berar Regulation of Agricultural Leases Act, 1951.
4 B/1958, the amount to be paid to Khushalsing Tolaram be kept in Revenue Deposit.
Before we deal with what happened before the Civil Judge, it is necessary to give some facts about the litigation between Sunderlal and Khushal Singh.
26,105.58, and apportioned the amount equally between Sunderlal and Khushal Singh.
Akola, held, on October 8, 1959, that Khushal Singh was a protected lessee.
The Bombay Revenue Tribunal companyfirmed the order of the Deputy Collector on March 22, 1960.
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated January 7, 1963 of the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench in Civil Revision Applications Nos.
He prayed, therefore, for leave to appear in the case as a party vitally interested.
163 of 1961 was filed in the High Court, in Special Civil Application No.
On September 18, 1961, Sunderlal and Khushal Singh filed applications for companypromise in both the Land Acquisition references.
After referring to Manjoor Ahmad v. Rajlaxmi Dasi 1 and Abu Bakar v. Peary Mohan Mukherjee 2 , he hold that the scope of the reference under s. 18 was limited and new questions number companyered by the reference companyld number be entertained.
On March 11, 1961, Paramsukhdas filed an application Civil Application No.
232 of 1960.
On July 21, 1956, Sunderlal filed a suit Civil Suit No.
The Land Acquisition Officer made his award on January 30, 1960, and assessed the total companypensation at Rs.
Paramsukhdas filed applications under 0.
On August 22, 1962, Sunderlal filed an application for withdrawal of Special Civil Application No.
20,013/ and the amount of Rs.
He further held that under the circumstances Paramsukhdas was number one of the persons interested in the acquired land before the Collector, and he also companyld number be one, of the persons interested in the objections under s. 20.
Sunderlal filed a petition before the High Court under Art.
133 B of 1956 against Khushal Singh for rent due on January 1, 1955, and January 1, 1956, in the, Court of Civil Judge, Akola.
13,644 27 towards satisfaction of his decree.
It further appears that Paramsukhdas withdrew the said amount of Rs.
79 of 1957 58 holding that Khushal Singh was number a protected lessee.
Khamgaon, and the attachment order issued by that Court, in C.S. No.
246 of 1961 and Civil Application No.
It was numbered Special Civil Application No.
246 of 1961 in the High Court in Special Civil Application No.
On July 25, 1958, the Sub Divisional Officer, Akola, answered the reference Revenue Case No.
The High Court further directed that Paramsukhdas be allowed to be impleaded as a number applicant in the two proceedings and all parties will be allowed to amend their pleadings or make fresh pleadings with respect to the alleged companypromise as filed before the High Court in Special Civil Application No.
232 of 1960.
163 of 1961, Civil Application No.
He further prayed that the companypromise application should number be entertained and, should be dismissed in the interest of justice.
On the same date, his Advocate, Mr. Sohoni gave an undertaking in the following terms Mr. Sohoni undertakes to hold the moneys withdrawn by his client subject to the orders of this Court on this application.
He held that admittedly Paramsukhdas had number approached the Land Acquisition Officer in the proceedings in which the award was passed on January 30, 1960.
294 and 295 of 1962.
Sunderlal, appellant, owned some land field No.
This field had been leased to Khushal Singh under a registered lease for 5 years companymencing from April 1, 1954.
and No.
294 of 1962 and 295 of 1962, filed by Paramsukhdas, a respondent before us.
On April 18, 1961, he filed another application Civil Application No.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
232 of 1960.
294 and 295 of 1962, before the High Court on June 30, 1962.
T. Desai, G. L. Sanghi and O. C. Mathur, for the appel lant in both the appeals .
He reviewed his orders on July 6, 1962, but numberhing turns on that in the present appeals.
B. Agarwala, S. K. Gambhir and Ganpat Rai, for respondent No.
Paramsukhdas, however, took three weeks more time from the High Court, which was granted to him.
The High Court, by this judgment, quashed orders dated April 9, 1962, in the Land Acquisition Cases No.
Sunderlal filed an application for reference under S. 18 of the Act, claiming more companypensation and also companyplaining in regard to the apportionment of the amount of companypensation between him and Khushal Singh.
On February 17, 1960, the Land Acquisition Officer numbered the following regarding Khushal Singh Khushalsing s o Tolaram According to letter No.
Khushal Singh further stated that he had numberobjection to the quashing of the orders of the Bombay Revenue Tribunal dated March 22, 1960, and of the Deputy Collector dated October 8, 1959.
The Collector made the reference and it was numbered Land Acquisition No.
He alleged that Khushal Singh and Sunderlal had mala fide entered into an agreement and had filed a companypromise application asking for quashing of the orders of the Revenue Courts with the sole object of setting at naught the attachment and execution of his decree.
232 of 1960, claiming to be heard.
He alleged that he had obtained a decree against Khushal Singh and started execution proceedings for Rs.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Sikri, J. These two appeals, by special leave, are directed against the judgment of High Court of Judicature at Bombay Nagpur Bench , dated January 7, 1963, allowing two Civil Revision applications Nos.
Paramsukhdas filed two revisions, Nos.
On appeal, the Deputy Collector.
294 and 295 of 1962, that revisions were number companypetent because appeals lay against the orders of the Civil A.I.R, 1956 Cal, 263.
365/61 wherein he stated that he had withdrawn the amount and alleged that he was number an interested party, and, therefore, he should be joined as a party.
He framed the issue Whether Paramsukhdas can be permitted to be substituted or added as a party to these two references.
On February 8, 1961, a companypromise petition Civil Application No.
1003 and 1004 of 1964.
to interfere with the orders of the Civil Judge, dated April 9, 1962 That Paramsukhdas, respondent No.
190 of 1961.
According to him, Khushal Singh was number a protected tenant and his period of lease having expired, he was number at all entitled to any portion of the amount of companypensation.
One Sunderlal minor guardian father Madanlal Harjimal, of Akola, has presented an objection petition against this payment.
On August 3, 1961, the High Court disposed of Civil Applica tion No.
365 of 1961.
232 of 1960.
Mr. S. T. Desai, the learned companynsel for the appellant, company tends That the High Court has numberjurisdiction under s. 115.
A reference under s. 18 was made on June 27, 1961, and this reference was numbered Land Acquisition Case No.
The High Court, in order to safeguard the interests of the parties, kept these proceedings pending till the decision on the, companypromise petition by the Civil Court.
189 of 1961.
Khushal Singh also applied for a reference and he claimed enhancement of companypensation and challenged the basis of apportionment adopted by the Land Asquisition Officer.
22 in Monza Umari, Taluq and District Akola.
He had number appeared before the Land Acquisition Officer as a person interested in the land or the companypensation that would be determined by the authorities.
N. Sachthey, S. P. Nayar for R. H. Dhebar, for the res pondent No.
1, is number a person interested in the companypensation and is number entitled to be impleaded as a party to the references under s. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, I of 1894 hereinafter referred to as the Act , That, if at all, numberrevision but appeal lay to the High Court.
190 of 1961 as amended subsequently on July 6, 1962 and remitted the matter to the Court of the Civil Judge, Akola, for a fresh decision on merits with advertence to the remarks in the judgment.
154 60 of 15th February 1960 from the Court of Civil Judge Sr.
1 in both the appeals .
226 of the Constitution.
3 in both the appeals .
It was stated in.
