Lahiri, J. - (1.) The decision of these four appeals turns on a single question and that is whether the State of West Bengal is bound by four compromise decrees passed by the Supreme Court on the 2nd March, 1954, although it was not a party to any of them. The facts upon which this question arises are not in dispute and are as follows:
(2.) On divers dates in the years 1938 and 1939, certain plots of land together with structures and trees standing thereon were acquired by the Land Acquisition Collector for the Calcutta Improvement Trust. Four land acquisition cases were started for the acquisition of these four plots of land. There were two grounds of rival claimants for compensation: (a) the landlords who may be collectively described as the Kochers and (b) the tenants who may be collectively described as the Mitras. In respect of the lands which formed the subject-matter of the acquisition the Collector made joint awards in favour of the landlords and tenants. Against the awards of the Collector the Kocher landlords filed applications for references disputing the amount of compensation and also claiming the entire amounts for themselves to the exclusion of the tenants. Those applications gave rise to four references which were cases Nos. 33, 61, 87 and 93 of 1939. The State of West Bengal was a party to all these valuation references. Besides the above four valuation references, four apportionment cases were also started upon the landlords' plea that they were exclusively entitled to the entire amount of compensation, and these apportionment cases were Nos. 117, 118, 119 and 123 of 1941 in which the State of West Bengal was not impleaded as a party. The Mitra tenants did not file any effective application challenging the amount of compensation awarded by the Collector and confined their claim to the shares they were entitled to get in the apportionment cases. In the valuation references made at the instance of the Kocher landlords the Calcutta Improvement Tribunal enhanced the valuation in the following manner: (1) In F. A. 6 of 1955, corresponding to apportionment case No. 117 of 1941, the Collector awarded Rs. 13,627-8-0 as the value of the land and this amount was increased by the Tribunal by Rs. 652-10-0 with costs and interest at the rate six per cent per annum. (2) In F. A. No. 7 of 1955, corresponding to apportionment case No. 123 of 1941, the Collector awarded Rs. 4,140/- as the value of the land which was enhanced by the Tribunal by Rs. 1,384-5-0 with costs and interest at the rate of six per cent per annum. (3) In F. A. No. 8 of 1955, corresponding to apportionment case No. 118 of 1941, the Collector awarded Rs. ll,063/- as the value of the land which was enhanced by the Tribunal by Rs. 2,598-10-9 with costs and interest at the rate of six per cent per annum. (4) In F. A. No, 9 of 1955, corresponding to apportionment case No. 119 of 1941, Collector's award of Rs. 48,012-8-0 was increased by the Tribunal by Rs. 11,199/- with costs and interest at the rate or six per cent per annum.
(3.) It is common ground that since the Mitra tenants did not file any application challenging the Collector's valuation they were not entitled to any part of the enhancement allowed by the Tribunal. This proposition follows from the provisions of Sections 12, 20 (b) and 21 of the Land Acquisition Act and also the decisions of the Judicial Committee and of this Court referred to in the judgment of the Tribunal and is not disputed before us. In the apportionment cases to which the State of West Bengal was not a party the Tribunal held that the Kocher landlords were entitled to 13% annas of the compensation and the Mitra tenants to the remaining 2 1/2 annas share. Against the order of the Tribunal the Mitra tenants filed four First Appeals to this Court which were registered as First Appeals Nos. 91, 93, 94 and 242 of 1945. By a judgment delivered in First Appeal No. 91 of 1945, which was to govern the other three appeals, this Court held on the 14th March, 1950, that the Kocher landlords were entitled to get only thirty tunes the annual rent as compensation and the entire balance was to go to the Mitra tenants. Against the decrees of this Court the Kocher landlords filed four appeals to the Supreme Court which were decreed on compromise on the 2nd March, 1954. The material provisions of the compromise decree passed by the Supreme Court are as follows : (a) That the judgment and decree dated the 14th March, 1950, of the Calcutta High Court be set aside and the corresponding judgment of the President, Calcutta Improvement Tribunal in the corresponding apportionment case be restored; (b) That out of the Collector's award the Kocher landlords be paid Rs. 3,200/- in one appeal and Rs. 3,500/- in each of the other two appeals and Rs. 800/- in the fourth appeal and the balance of the amount in deposit with the Collector be paid to the Mitra tenants together with interest accrued thereon; (c) That the enhanced award together with all costs and interest be paid to the landlords-appellants. These compromise decrees were filed by the Kocher landlords before the Calcutta Improvement Tribunal together with applications for withdrawing the money to which they were entitled under the compromise decrees. The Kocher landlords claimed in their petitions that under the terms of the compromise they were entitled to withdraw the entire amounts of the enhancements made by the Tribunal in the valuation references. This claim was resisted by the State of West Bengal on the ground that under the High Court judgment they had lost their right to get any portion of the enhancement and that right could not be revived by a compromise to which the State of West Bengal was not a party. The President of the Improvement Tribunal took the view that the judgment of this Court had been superseded by the compromise decrees passed by the Supreme Court and, therefore, the Kocher landlords were entitled to withdraw 13 1/2 annas share of the enhancement made by the Tribunal in the valuation references. Against this order of the Tribunal the State of West Bengal has brought the present appeals. On behalf of the appellant it has been contended that under the judgment of this Court the appellant was absolved from all liabilities to pay any part of the enhanced compensation to the Kocher landlords. The position is this. The judgment of the High Court did not allow any fraction of the compensation to be paid out to the Kocher landlords but directed that the landlords would be entitled to a specific sum, that is thirty times the annual rent.;