Judgment

VARDARAJAN, J.:- These appeals by certificate we directed against the judgment of a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Regular First Appeals 55 and 56 of 1963 filed against the judgment dated 24-7-1961 of the Additional District Judge, Delhi in reference made, by the first respondent Sewa Ram under S. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 which was treated as a reference under S. 32 of that Act. Pursuant to a notification issued under S. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in February or March, 1955, 2626 bighas and 14 biswas of land situate in Khampur village beyond Alipur on the Karnal road was acquired for the construction of a shortwave transmitter for the All India Radio. Various persons including the appellants in these appeals put forward claims for compensation, some of them claiming as owners of some pieces of the land, some as non-occupancy tenants and some as sub-tenants inducted by tenants or mortgagees. The Collector considered the claims and passed an Award dated 27-2-1965 (1956?) and a supplementary Award dated 13-3-1965 (1956?). Some of the tenants objected to the award of compensation to the landlords on the ground that under S. 8 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act. :1954 they had acquired the status of Bhumidhars and as such were entitled to receive the entire compensation in respect of the portion of land which was in their possession on the date of acquisition to the exclusion of the landlords. Thereupon, the Collector made a reference to the District Judge, Delhi under S. 32 of the Land Acquisition Act on 23-7-1956 in one case. The landlords contended before the Additional District Judge, before whom the Collectors reference came up for consideration that the tenants had no present right to receive any compensation. The Additional District Judge found on the basis of the tenants application dated 28-10-1955 that they had sought Only a declaration under S. 13 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act and that since the requisite declaration in their favour had not been made by the Deputy Commissioner to the effect that they have acquired bhumidhari rights, under the Act they had no right to claim compensation for the lands in respect of which, they claimed to be non-occupancy tenants. The Additional District Judge found that even if the allegation of the tenants that they had applied for grant of bhumidhari rights was correct they had no present right and they were, therefore, not entitled to claim the compensation. Before the single Judge of the High Court they took up the stand that the declaration under S. 14 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act had been issued and they had thus acquired bhumidhari rights, entitling them to the compensation. But they failed to prove that claim and had not produced any such declaration dated 23-6-1956 with retrospective effect from 20-7-1954 when the Delhi Land Reforms Act came into force. They did not produce any such declaration before the learned Judges who constituted the Division Bench in LPA Nos. 103 and 108 of 1960. The learned Judges, therefore, held that they were not entitled to assail the judgment of the Additional District Judge on a different ground in the Letters Patent Appeals. They agreed with the learned single Judge that the tenants cannot lay claim to the compensation without proving their case that they have acquired bhumidhari rights and dismissed the appeals observing, however that the observation of the Additional District Judge that it will not be difficult for the tenants to claim the compensation if they subsequently obtained the declaration regarding acquisition of bhumidhari rights with retrospective effect.

2. The present appeals arise out of the judgment of a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in regular First Appeals 55 and 56 of 1963 which had been filed against the order of the Additional District Judge, Delhi in Land Acquisition Case 18 of 1959. Inder Singh and his brothers, appellants in C. A. 1780 of 1970 which arises out of RFA 55 of 1963, wh