( 1 ) THE above two are applications under Article 226 of the Constitution. They raise common questions of law and may conveniently be disposed of together.

( 2 ) THE petitioner in both the cases is the same. He owned certain lands in villages Bhilawan and barha in the District ot Luck-now. The Collector of the District decided to requisition ami then to acquire portions of his land in the two villages. The Collector of Lucknow accordingly issued notices under Section 3 of the U. P. Land Acquisition (Rehabilitation of Refugees) Act, 1948, U. P. Act No. 26 of 1948. This Act will hereafter be referred to as the Act. Section 3 of the Act provides that if, in the opinion of the State Government or such other authority as the State Government may appoint in that behalf, it is necessary or expendient to requisition the land for purposes of erection of houses, shops or workshops for the renabitration of the refugees, the State Government or the appointed authority, as the case may be, muy by order requisition any land by serving on the owner and occupier thereof a notice stating that the State Government or the appointing authority has decided to requisition it in pursuance of this section. The notices were duly issued and served on the petitioner, and it is not denied that the notices were issued by proper authority. Subsequently on the 5th March, 1953, notices were issued under Sub-section (1) of Section 9 of the Act stating that the Collector had decided to acquire the land in pursuance of the sub-section. The petitioner is not disputing the correctness of the requisition or the acquisition and the only point in dispute is the amount of compensation to which he was entitled under Section 11 of the Act. This section provides that where any land is acquired under Section 9, there shall be paid compensation to the owner, the amount of which snail be determined by the Compensation officer in accordance with the principles set out in clauses first, second and third of Sub-section (1) and of Sub-section (2) of Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. There are then two provisos added to the sub-section and the first of them is important and may be quoted in full. It says,

"provided that the market value referred to in clause first of the said sub-section shall be deemed to be the market value of such land on the date of publication of the notice under Section 7 or 9, as the case may be, or on the first day of September, 1939, whichever is less:"

The second proviso refers to the case where the land was purchased by the owner after the first day of September, 1939 and before the first day of April, 1948, but that is not the case before us and the second proviso, therefore, need not be mentioned. As regards the above two provisos a division Bench of this Court, of which one of us was a member, held in the case of H. P. Khandewal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1954 All LJ 675 : ( (S) AIR 1955 All 12) (A), that the provisos contravened the provisions of Section 299 of the Government of India Act, as they did not provide for payment of proper compensation and had not been saved by the provisions of article 31 (5) of the Constitution.

( 3 ) CONSEQUENTLY, when the proceedings lor the determination of compensation were taken, the land Acquisition Oarcer (who was seized of the matter), calculated compensation according to the market value on the date of the acquisition under Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act and ignored the two provisos of the Rehapilitation of Refugees Act. On the 19th May, 1955, be gave an award fixing a sum of Rs. 68,749-9-0 as compensation for the land acquired in village bnillawan and Rs. 56,516-14-0 as compensation lor the land acquired in village Barha. Tne petitioner, it appears, was not satisfied with the awards and on the 27th June 1955, ho filed two applications under Section 11 (3) of the Act for reference of the matter to Court, that is the district Judge. On the 13th September 1955, the Stat