S.N. Dwivedi, J. - (1.) IN these two petitions the Petitioners seek to go in appeal to the Supreme Court from the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court dismissing their writ petitions. It is said that by a declaration Under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, the State sought to acquire certain land of the Petitioners. There is no dispute before us that the value of the land sought to be acquired was and is more than Rs. 20,000/ -. The Petitioners filed two writ petitions in this Court challenging the validity of the declaration Under Section 6. They prayed that the declaration Under Section 6 should be quashed and that the Respondents should be restrained from interfering "with the possession of the Petitioners over the land in dispute." After their writ petitions were dismissed, they filed these petitions. The petitions were heard by a Division Bench. Before the Division Bench their case was that as the land sought to be acquired by the declaration Under Section 6 was definitely valued at more than Rs. 20,000/ -, they are entitled to a certificate either under Clause (a) or Clause (b) of Article 133(1) of the Constitution. We are informed that the Bench was not satisfied that the Petitioners were entitled to a certificate under Clause (a). As regards Clause (b), the argument of the Petitioners was that the end phrase "of the like amount or value" qualifies the immediately preceding word "property". On the other hand, the argument of the Respondents was that the said end -phrase qualifies the phrase "some claim or question" in Clause (b) of Article 133 (1). In Central Talkies v. Dwarika Prasad : AIR 1956 All 348 : 1956 AWR 819 a Division Bench of this Court has held that the end phrase qualifies the word "property". The Petitioners relied on this decision before the Division Bench. But the Respondents relied on an unreported Division Bench decision in Anup Singh v. State of UP Supreme Court Appeal No. 86 of 1967 D/ - 21 -5 -1969. The Division Bench felt that there was a direct conflict between the Central Talkies and Anup Singh. So the Division Bench formulated a question on this point and referred it for opinion to a larger Bench. This full Bench is constituted for the purpose. The question referred to the Full Bench is: Whether the Phrase "of the like amount or value" occurring in Clause (b) of Article 133 (1) of the Constitution qualifies the word 'property' occurring therein or it qualifies the phrase "some claim or question" occurring therein. Anup Singh is also a decision with reference to a declaration Under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. The writ petition was dismissed by a Division Bench. It was urged in that case that as the property sought to be acquired by the declaration Under Section 6 was worth more than Rs. 20,000/ -, a certificate under Clause (b) of Article 133(1) should be granted. Dealing with this argument, the Division Bench said: What is, however, disputed is the right of the Government to acquire the plots. Can it be said that the right itself is of the value of Rs. 20,000/ - or over? In our opinion, it is not so. With respect, we are unable to share this view. In the present case the substantive and substantial relief claimed by the Petitioners is that the Respondents should be restrained from interfering with their possession over the property sought to be acquired. This relief is grounded on the argument that the declaration Under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act is illegal. So in substance the claim of the Petitioners is that their right to full ownership of the properties sought to be acquired should be protected from being expropriated by the Respondents. In substance the claim is accordingly to the full Ownership of the properties. This claim is capable of valuation. The value of the claim will be the value of the property.
(2.) THE view which we are taking on the facts of these two cases before us, is, it seems to us, also the view of the Supreme Court. In Smt. Jasoda Bai v. State of Maharashtra : 1970 (1) SCC 171 some land worth more than Rs. 20,000/ - was, it appears, being acquired under some Act relating to imposition of ceiling on land holdings. Smt. Jasoda Bai filed a writ petition challenging the proceedings under the said Act. The petition was dismissed. Thereafter she applied for a certificate Under Article 133(1)(a)(b) and (c). The petition was summarily rejected. Smt. Jasoda Bai then, it seems to us, applied Under Article 136 of the Constitution. It was urged before the Supreme Court on her behalf that on the facts of that case she was entitled to a certificate. The Supreme Court observed: The Appellants before the High Court were attempting to save their property by challenging the validity of the Act and the decision of the Court that the Act was valid directly affected the civil rights of the parties in properties well over the mark in value. In these circumstances, the High Court could not refuse the certificate. This observation suggests to us that the Supreme Court was of opinion that Smt. Jasoda Bai was entitled to a certificate Under Clause (b) of Article 133(1). The observation however, does not indicate whether the Supreme Court was of the view that the end phrase "of the like amount or value" qualifies the phrase "some claim or question" or the word -"property" in Clause (b) of Article 133(1). Even if we assume that the end phrase "of the like amount or value" qualifies the phrase "some claim; or question" as is contended by counsel for the Respondents, it appears to us (but we do not express any categorical opinion) that the Petitioners should get a certificate Under Clause (b) of Article 133(1). The claim or question about the full ownership of property would be worth more than Rs. 20,000/ - if the property itself is worth more than Rs. 20,000/. We are making it clear that we are not expressing any opinion in regard to case, where a right inferior to the right of full ownership in the property is involved or the claim or question is incapable of valuation. If the view is taken that the end phrase qualifies the word "property", then there is no doubt that Petitioners will be entitled to a certificate Under Clause (b). So whatever our opinion on the question referred to us be, the Petitioners appear to us to be entitled to a certificate Under Clause (b) of Article 133(1). Accordingly we do not think it proper to answer the closely formulated question referred to us.
(3.) THE papers may be returned to the Bench along with our answer. The cases may be listed at an early data before the Bench.;