Mehrotra, J. - (1.) These are two applications under Article 133 of the Constitution praying that leave be granted to the applicant to appeal to the Supreme Court against the judgments of this Court in Civil Misc. Writs Nos. 1358 and 1359 of 1954.
(2.) The facts, as set out in the petition briefly are that Sri Shankar Lal, father of the applicant, who was a zamindar of village Deorampur, had certain sir plots Nos. 88, 130, 131 and 148 in the said village. Two suite were filed on or about 29-9-1947, which were Nos. 103 and 104 of 1947 under Sections 175/179, U. P. Tenancy Act against the opposite parties Brij Lal, Sewa Ram and Kalika for ejectment. These two suits along with two other suits, which were filed against one Bachchan, were consolidated and were heard together by the Assistant Collector, First Class, Parrukhabad who decreed the suits for ejectment. The petitioner executed her decree and got possession over the plots on 29-6-1948. Appeals were filed by the opposite parties to the Commissioner and they were consolidated with the appeals filed by Bachchan against the decrees in his suits. The appeals were allowed on the ground that the plaints did not contain certain particulars as required by Section 19 of the U. P, Tenancy Act and the suits were dismissed. Two second appeals were filed before the Board of Revenue which were consolidated with two other appeals filed in suits, against Bachchan. The delivery of possession was stayed during the pendency of these appeals. The appeals came up for hearing before a single Member of the Board of Revenue, Sri A.N. Sapru who, by his order dated 7-12-1953, dismissed the appeals. Applications for review were filed by the applicant which were admitted and notice was issued to the opposite parties. On 3-5-1954, the applications were heard by Sri A.N. Sapru who allowed the review applications and set aside the order dismissing the appeals and maintained the Judgments of the trial Court decreeing the suits for ejectment. The judgment was sent for "concurrence" to another member of the Board who concurred with the order proposed by Sri A.N. Sapru on 5-5-1954. Other applications were thereafter made on 18-5-1954 by the opposite parties for the review of the order of the Board of Revenue dated 3-5-1954 on the review applications on several grounds. The main contention, in the applications for review was that Section 20, U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act applied to the facts of the case and the appeals should have been dismissed. These applications for review were admitted and 4-1-1955 was fixed for final hearing of the review applications. Applications under Article 226 of the Constitution were filed in this Court which were numbered 1358 and 1359 of 1954 and were admitted on 16-12-1954. On 29-3-1955 these petitions came up for hearing before this Bench and were rejected. During the pendency of the writ petitions here, the hearing of the review applications was stayed. The present applications have been filed for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court under Article 133 of the Constitution against the order of this Bench rejecting the writ petitions on 29-3-1955 :
(3.) By our order dated 26-8-1955, the following issues were sent down to the Court below for decision : "1. What was the value of the properties that were made the subject-matter of the following suits for ejectment ? Suits Nos. 102, 103, 104 and 105 of 1947. 2. What was the value of the subject-matter of each suit?." By its decision dated 21-12-1955, the Assistant Collector, First Class, has sent his findings on the two issues and has held that the value of the properties which were the subject-matter of the suits Nos. 102 to 105 of 1947 is Rs. 11,600/- and the value of the subject-matter in suit No. 102 is Rs. 1,000/-, in suit No 103 is Rs. 3,900/-, in suit No. 104 is Rs. 3,900/- and in suit No. 105 is Rs. 2,800/-. Objections have been filed on behalf of the petitioner to the findings of the Assistant Collector. When they came up for hearing before us, the counsel for the opposite parties raised a preliminary objection to the grant of these petitions.;