Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is illegal. Accordingly, the respondent was directed to make an appropriate application before the civil Court in which the deposit is made for return of the reference along with the deposit and the petitioners were permitted to make claims before respondent No.3. Respondent No.3 was further directed to pass appropriate order on examination of the petitioners’ claims and that if she finds that they are not entitled to receive compensation, she shall thereafter refer the dispute to the civil Court and that if she finds that the petitioners are the true owners of the property, compensation shall be paid to them. Thus, the scope of these Contempt Cases is limited as to examining whether the respondent has taken back the deposit already made and paid the same to the petitioners. The issues relating to interest accrued on such deposit and the extent of land for which compensation is payable are not the subject matter of the two Writ Petitions and consequently, the same fall outside the scope of these Contempt Cases. As the respondent has complied with the directions given by this Court, the Contempt proceedings are liable to be closed with liberty to the petitioners to ventilate their grievances by availing appropriate remedy with regard to the non-payment of interest and the dispute relating to the extent of land for which compensation is paid.
