Judgment

G.P. MATHUR, J.- These appeals are directed against the judgment and

decree dated 19-12-1997 of the Allahabad High Court by which two first appeals preferred by the Allahabad Development Authority were partly allowed and the award made by the Additional District Judge was modified.

2. At the instance of the Allahabad Development Authority (hereinafter referred as ADA) the State Government took steps to acquire propertybearing No.2, Circular Road, in the city of Allahabad having an area of about 4 bighas. The preliminary notification under Section 4( 1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") was published in the gazette on 7-1-1987 and it was recited therein that the land is being acquired for a public purpose, namely, for construction of residential flats by ADA and in view of urgency, the provisions of Section 17 were being invoked. TheSpecial Land Acquisition Officer (hereinafter referred to as "SLAO") made an award for the acquired land on 15-6-1987 and further directed that the compensation payable for the building and the trees standing thereon shall be determined subsequently after their valuation had been ascertained. The question of apportionment of the compensation for the acquired land was referred for determination by the Court in accordance with Section 30 of the

e Act. ADA thereafter took possession of the land on 16-6-1987. It is the admitted case of the parties that the land in dispute, namely, No.2, Circular Road was owned by the State Government which had been given on lease. According to the claimant Ravindra Kumar Tandon (husband of the appellant Smt Kiran Tandon), the lease in his favour was to expire on 7-7-1987. The SLAO gave a supplementary award with regard to the building and the treeson 4-3-1989. In the awards the market value of the land was fixed as Rs 72.50 per square yard, the value of the building (exclusive of land) at Rs 3,48,000 and the value of the trees as Rs 23,100. Being dissatisfied with the amount of compensation awarded to him, the claimant sought references to the Court which were made by the SLAO and accordingly, three references were registered, namely, References No. 126 of 1987, No. 23 of 1988 andNo. 34 of 1989. The references were decided by the Vlllth Additional District Judge, Allahabad on 8-12-1992 by separate orders. ADA then preferred two appeals, namely, First Appeal No. 368 of 1994 and First Appeal No. 439 of 1994 before the High Court in which the State ofD.P. was impleaded as pro forma Respondent 2 but subsequently it was transposed as Appellant 2. The Additional District Judge had held that the market value ofthe land was Rs 500 per square yard and that the claimant was entitled to the entire amount even though possession of the land was taken only 21 days .before the expiry of the lease. He further assessed the value of the building at Rs 10,96,842 and value of the trees at Rs 50,000. The High Court upheld the finding of the Additional District Judge regarding the market value of the a land but directed that a deduction of 20 per cent should be made towards the cost of internal development which would be incurred by ADA. The High Court further held that in view of the fact that the claimant had only leasehold rights and the period of lease expired within a few days of taking over possession, the compensation amount with regard to the same had to be apportioned equally amongst the claimant and the State Government and therefore the claimant was entitled to only 50 per cent of the compensation amount. It further held that the value of the building was Rs 60,000 and the value of the trees was Rs 23,000.

3. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the High Court the claimant as well as ADA preferred special leave petitions in this Court. The special leave petition referred by ADA was summarily dismissed without assigning any reason. After leave was granted in the special leave petitions filed by the claimant, ADA preferred a review