The scope of the enquiry in an apportionment case under the Land Acquisition Act is limited to the consideration of the interest of the persons affected by the objection raised by the person who has obtained the reference.

( 1 ) THIS dispute relates to Apportionment Case No. 49 of 1948, now pending before the President, Calcutta Improvement Tribunal. The dispute relates to premises Nos. 2 and 2/1/1, Deb Lane, of one Raj Ballav was admittedly the original owner. These properties are the subject-matter of acquisition and there have been numerous conflicting claims to this property. The Collector made a joint award in favour of Raj Lakshmi Dassi and several persons collectively known as the Dasses as also the Corporation of Calcutta. Raj Lakshmi Dassi claimed as the representative of Jogendra said to be the adopted son of Raj Ballav and by virtue of the provisions of the will of Raj Ballav and decrees passed in several suits. The Dasses claimed title as mortgagees. The Corporation claimed charge on account of arrears of taxes. The claims of the other claimants including Tulsi Manjuri Dassi, Bonamali Sen, Manjur Ahmed and Bechu Lal Shaw were disallowed. Tulsi Manjuri Dassi claimed title to a half share of the two premises as the representative of her husband Kalidas Ben by virtue of the will of Raj Ballav and on the ground of adverse possession. Banomali Sen claimed that a Receiver appointed in Title Suit No. 59 of 1944 had executed a mortgage of Tulsi Manjuri's share in premises No. 2 Deb Lane that in proceedings for execution of the final decree passed in a suit for enforcement of that mortgage Manzur Ahmed and Bechulal Shaw had purchased the half share belonging to Tulsi Manjuri in the premises, and that they subsequently sold half share of their interest in that property to Banomali Sen. Banomali Sen claimed half of all the compensation for the land and structures belonging to Tulsi Manjuri Dassi. In the petition filed before the Collector Banomali Sen prayed that half of the compensation may be awarded separately to him. Manjur Ahmed repeated the allegations of Banomali Sen and alleged further that by deed dated 5-8-1946, Bechulal sold his interest in the premises to Manjur Ahmed and that Manjur Ahmed had become owner of the half share of premises Nos. 2 and 2/1/1 Deb Lane. Dissatisfied with the award some of the claimants including Tulsi Manjuri Dassi and Banomali Sen obtained a reference to the President, Calcutta Improvement Tribunal, under Section 18, Land Acquisition Act. The objections of Tulsimanjuri and Banomali Sen together with several other objections have been marked as one apportionment case No. 49 of 1948. In this Apportionment Case issues have been raised and settled. One issue is whether Tulsi Manjuri Dassi had any interest in the acquired premises and was her interest sold and purchased by Manzur Ahmed and Bechulal Shaw in the execution sale. Manzur Ahmed did not apply for and did not obtain a reference under Section 18, Land Acquisition Act. The award was made on 21-1-1947. It is admitted that by virtue of the proviso to Section 18, Land Acquisition Act his right to apply for a reference has been barred, Manjur Ahmed made an application before the learned President under Section 53, Land Acquisition Act read with Order 1, Rule 10, Civil P. C. praying that he be added as a party to the apportionment case and that he be permitted to file his written statement in the case. The learned Judge dismissed the application. Manzur Ahmed moved this Court against this order of dismissal. Manzur Ahmed has since died and his representatives have been substituted in his place.

( 2 ) MANZUR Ahmed alleged that with the outbreak of the Calcutta riots in August, 1946, he fled from Calcutta; that he did not come back till after a year; that he did not receive any notice of the award and that he did not know of the award until 27-5-1953. The learned Judge has disbelieved the allegation that he did not know of the award till 27-5-1953. The petition was not supported by an affidavit. It is difficult to believe that Manzur Ahmed did not know of the award until May 1953 though on his own case, he had returned to Calcutta within about a