1. This Rule is directed against two orders of the President of the Calcutta Improvement Trust Tribunal, dated the 30th August and the 26th September 1924. The matter arose in this way. Land acquisition proceedings with regard to certain lands in Upper Circular Road were pending before the Land Acquisition Collector. The Petitioner was the mortgagee in respect of three properties with only one of which we are concerned for the purposes of this application, it being No. 123-2, Upper Circular Road. The Petitioner put in a claim in respect of the money awarded on the 19th September 1922. After he had put in this claim he was informed that an award had been made in respect of one of the properties, namely, No. 123 2, Upper Circular Road, on the 31st August 1922. The Petitioner states that he did not appear before the Land Acquisition Collector, as he had had no notice served on him of the proceedings. On the 28th November 1922, the Collector made a reference under the provisions of Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act to the Improvement Trust Tribunal. In that a reference was made by the Collector to the claim of the Petitioner who was the mortgagee of the shares of one of the beneficiaries in the estate of the late Raja Radha Kanta Deb. The Improvement Trust Tribunal served notice on the Petitioner under the provisions of Section 20 of the Land Acquisition Act, calling on him to submit statements of his claim. The notice was served on the 14th January of this year and a written statement was put in by the Petitioner on the 8th August last. No objection was taken by any of the parties to this. The 30th August 1924 was fixed by the Tribunal for the hearing of the reference made by the Collector under Section 18, which was made at the instance of some of the lessees of the estate. On the 30th August 1924 the President of the Tribunal made an order which is objected to. He said that as regards the Petitioner, his claim could not be entertained on the reference as no award had been made in his favour and he did not apply for or obtain any reference under Part III of the Act and that the Collector had not made any reference under the provisions of Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act. So I have already stated, it is this order of the 30th August 1924, to which I have just referred which is complained of before us. The other order of the 26th November 1924 is merely an order by the President of the Tribunal refusing to review his order of the 30th August. Now it seems to us that the order of the 30th August 1924 is wrong. Section 18 provides that any person interested who did not accept the award may, by a written application to the Collector, require the matter to be referred for determination of the Court, whether the objection be to the measurement of the compensation and to the persons to whom it is payable or to the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested. Now it is sought to support the order of the President by a reference to the provisions of Section 21 which states that the scope of an enquiry on proceedings arising under a reference such as the one to which I have referred shall be restricted to the consideration of the interest of the persons affected by the objection, and it is said that the order of the President is correct, because the Petitioner is not a person affected by the objection which is made by the lessee with regard to the apportionment. But we think, having regard to the fact that in the reference of the 20th November 1922, a reference was made to the Petitioner as one of the claimants the nature of his claim being set out, he was clearly entitled to appear before the Tribunal for the purposes of the reference under Section 18, and in so far as the President states that the Collector has made no reference with regard to the claim of the Petitioner under Section 30, it seems to us that the reference to the Petitioner's claim in the reference of the 20th November 1922 really amounts to a reference under Section 30. Even if this is not so, we think that under the circumstances of the case, namely, in view of the reference to the Petitioner's claim made by the Collector, he is clearly a per-son who is entitled to be present at the hearing of the reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. It appears moreover that there is no dispute with regard to the Petitioner's mortgage and he is, we think, clearly entitled to appear before the Tribunal and to make such representation as ho may desire to make with regard to the apportionment of the compensation to the beneficiaries through whom he claims and the allocation to him of a portion of that share in satisfaction of his mortgage.
2. In the result, we make the Rule absolute for the reasons I have stated above. We make no order as to costs.