Acceptance of the Collector's award before the award was passed barred the appellants from claiming the lessees' interest in the enhanced amount of compensation.

( 1 ) THIS appeal arises out of Order No. 250, dated August 2, 1957, of the President Calcutta Improvement Tribunal rejecting the application of the appellants whereby they asked for payment of the whole of the enhanced amount of compensation.

( 2 ) THE appellants Mathura Prasad Rajgharia and others were lessees of Premises No. 1. Bahir Surah Road, Calcutta, under one Madhushudan Banerjee and Sm. Surabala Devi, for a term of sixty years under a registered lease dated September 20, 1927. Under the terms of the lease, the appellants had the option to purchase the lessors' interest in the demised property at any time within ten years from the date of the, lease. It was further provided in the lease that in the event of acquisition of the demised property, both the lessors and the lessees shall be entitled to the compensation that would be payable to them respectively.

( 3 ) THE premises was acquired by the Government after the publication of the statutory notification and declaration. The declaration under Section 6 of the Lend Acquisition Act was made on September 4. 1941. The L. A. Collector assessed the value of the land at Rupees 3,73,941/- which represented both lessors' and lessees' interest in the land. Before the award was passed by the Collector in accordance with Section 11 of the Act Mr. Satyendra Nath Mitra, Advocate accepted the valuation made by the Collector on behalf of the appellants as lessees. The acceptance was made by the learned Advocate in writing on the petition of claim filed before the Collector in the following terms:--"under instruction from my client, I accept Rs. 3,73,941/- as the value of the land plus S. A. therein measuring 536 Ka. 2 Chs. 38 sq. ft. of land excluding area occupied by Shitola Temple and the grave with the passage as claimed and Rs. 335/ - and S. A. for trees and Rs. 2000/- and S. A. for culvert, road and drainage and Rs. 3120/-and S. A. for two structures in full satisfaction of my client's claim as a lessee and Rs. 350/- plus S. A. for ghat. "

( 4 ) ON August 30, 1943, the Collector made a joint award in favour of the appellants and their lessors for a total sum of Rs. 4,30,788/13/9 pies which included the said sum of Rs. 3,73,941/- on account of the value of the land and other sums for trees etc. Possession of the premises was taken by the Collector on October 20, 1943.

( 5 ) THE appellants did not make any reference against the award of the Collector presumably because they accepted the valuation made by the Collector through their learned Advocate. On July 6, 1944, the lessors Madhusudan Banerjee and Surabala Devi made a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for valuation and apportionment. The valuation case was numbered as Case No. 66 of 1944 and the Apportionment case was numbered as Case No. 13 of 1947.

( 6 ) ON January 26, 1945, the appellants instituted a suit at Alipore against their lessors, namely, Madhusudan Banerjee and Surabala Devi for specific performance of contract of sale as embodied in the lease dated September 20, 1927. During the pendency of the suit Surabala Devi transferred her interest in the acquired property to the appellants by a registered kobala dated April 3, 1945. After the said transfer the appellants got themselves substituted in place of Surabala Devi in the valuation case.

( 7 ) THE valuation case was disposed of by the Tribunal by its order dated February 23, 1948. The Collector's award of compensation in respect of the land was enhanced by Rs. 57,196/6 annas. As to the apportionment of the enhanced amount between the appellants and Madhusudan Banerjee the Tribunal by its order dated March 2, 1948, directed that the question as to the apportionment of the enhanced amount would be decided in a subsequent proceeding to be heard along with the Apportionment Case No. 13 of 1947. The then Province of Bengal made an application for being added as a party in the Apportionment case. The application was allowed and t