CMPMO Nos. 791 and 792 of 2008. 19.12.2008 Present: Ms. Shilpa Sood and Mr. Atul Jhingan, counsel for the petitioners. The petitioners herein have approached this Court against the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Una on 22.9.2008. The Court notices that the dispute relates to one between the right holders and land owners and the proportions of the awarded amount to which they are entitled to. The land owners, on the basis of the judgments passed in RFA Nos. 67, 68, 69 and 75 of 1989, titled Ram Murti and others versus Land Acquisition Collector with respect to land acquisition proceedings of the adjoining lands, claimed 3/4th share of compensation. The learned Court holds that it will be difficult at this stage to determine the dispute so raised and accordingly dismissed the applications. The case was fixed for 7.11.2008. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the judgments -2- passed by this Court in the appeals which have been filed as Annexure P-2. Learned counsel has urged with vehemence that the Court below was bound by this judgment and that the awarded amount should be released in their favour. At this stage, I find it difficult to accept this contention as it would need a full fledged trial for this determination which is not the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. These petitions are disposed of with the directions: i) that the awarded amount be invested in the fixed deposit so that the amount awarded earns interest; ii) a direction is issued to the learned trial Court that the main proceedings out of which the present petitions arise, be disposed of, not later than 31.12.2009. This direction is being issued keeping in view the fact that decision with respect to the other estates of the right holders and land owners as placed on record seems to have determined the controversy to a large extent. However, for arriving at a decision on merits, the Court shall, of course allow the parties to lead their respective evidence. It is also clarified that no undue adjournment shall be granted. -3- Pending applications shall stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. December 19, 2008 (PC). (Dev Darshan Sud), J.