D.K. Mahajan, J.
1. This is an application under Article 133 of the Constitution of India read with Sections 109 and 110 and Order 45 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This application is directed against our judgment passed in Letters Patent Appeals Nos. 20 and 29 of 1966. These appeals were directed against the decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court. That decision was set aside by us in an appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent,
2. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that he is entitled to leave under Article 133 of the Constitution of India as of right because our judgment reversed the judgment of the learned Single Judge and the value of the subject-matter in dispute is more than Rs. 20,000/- both at the time of the institution of the suit as well as of the application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court
3. The learned counsel for the respondent has contested the application on the ground that the test of valuation is not Satisfied He has brought to our notice that the applicant is merely a lessee of the land that has been acquired. The land belongs to Mst. Safidan. There is no indication on the record as to what is the nature of the leasehold rights that vest in the applicant It is stated in the affidavit that the value of the land is Rs. 29,000/-, at the rate of Rs. 4/- per square yard. This rate has been taken from the award of the Collector while fixing the compensation for the remaining land that was acquired for the respondent
4. It cannot be that the leasehold rights are more than the sum of Rs. 20,000/-, particularly when nothing is [mown about the nature of the lease and its duration. Therefore, we are unable to bold that the leasehold rights, regarding which their Lordships of the Supreme Court will have to pronounce upon, are of the value of more than Rs. 20,000/-. As the test of valuation is not satisfied, we are unable to certify this case as a fit one for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.
5. The next contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that he has scent a sum of Rs. 1.00,000/- on the build-ins that has been constructed by him on the land and for the saw-mill that he bad set up there. There is no claim in the suit either regarding the building or the saw-mill. Therefore, they cannot be taken into consideration for arriving at the value of the subject-matter in dispute. The notification regarding the acquisition of land does not relate either to the building or the saw-mill. Therefore, naturally, it was not the subject-matter of the litigation in which the present application has arisen.
6. The last contention of the learned counsel is that he is entitled to leave under Clause (c) of Article 133(1) of the Constitution. We are unable to agree with this contention. No question of either public or private Importance is involved.
7. For the reasons recorded above, we reject this application. As a consequence thereof, the Interim order of stay will stand vacated.
Shamsher Bahadur, J.
8. I agree.
B. S. Narula, J.
9. I also agree.