1. These appeals arise out of proceedings under the Land Acqisition Act and the question involved in the appeals relates to the valuation of the land acquired.
2. It has not been shown that the valuation arrived at by the learned Judge below upon the materials on the record in the present case is wrong. The valuation by the Judge, however, represents all the interest in the land, and not merely the landlord's interest. The landlord is, therefore, entitled only to his share of the excess amount as found by the Court below. The tenants accepted the award of the Collector and did not ask for any reference to the Judge nor take any exception to the award before the Judge. Under the circumstances, the tenants are not entitled to any share of the excess amount found by the Court below.
3. The result is that the oases must go back to the lower Court in order that there might be apportionment between the interests of the landlord and the tenants. The Collector will have to deposit the excess amount which would be payable to the landlords in respect of their interests only. He will not have to deposit anything on account of the tenants' share in the excess amount as found by the Court below.
4. Each party to bear his own costs in these appeals.
5. The cross objections in B. A. Nos. 113 and 114 of 1916 are not pressed and are, therefore, dismissed.
6. I agree.