1. DORAB PATEL, J.----This petition for leave arises out of a reference under the Land Acquisition Act which is pending in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Peshawar. The land owned by the petitioners was acquired by the Collector under the Land Acquisition Act and it is not in dispute that the first respondent was the petitioners' tenant on this land. However, the dispute is about the improvements on this land which consist of an orchard, houses and a tube-well. The petitioners claim that they had ''made these improvements on the land whilst according to the first respondent, he had made these improvements on the land and was, therefore entitled to compensa--petition for the same. No-A, the Collector, Peshawar District assessed the value of these improvements at Rs. 80,000 and in view of the dispute between the petitioners and the first respondent about the ownership of these improvements, he referred the matter under section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act to the Senior Civil Judge, Peshawar. The amount of Rs. 80,000 was also deposited by the Collector in the Court of the Seni6r Civil Judge, therefore, the first respondent filed an application for the payment of the said amount to him but this application was rejected by the Senior Civil Judge by his order dated 22-6-1977. Unfortunately, the petitioners have not cared to file a copy of this order of the Senior Civil Judge. Be this as it may, the first respondent filed an appeal in the Peshawar High Court against this order and although this appeal was dismissed by a learned Judge of the High Court by his order dated 18-10-1978, the petitioners, who were the respondents in the High Court, have filed this petition for leave against the High Court's order of 18th October, 1978 because they were aggrieved by the direction given by the learned Judge to the Senior Civil Judge, whilst dismissing the first respondent's appeal.
2. After holding that no case had been made out for an appeal, the learnedJudge observed that the appeal' was;--- "dismissed but the Senior Civil Judge, Peshawar is directed to dispose; of the objection petition of the respondents which is pending before him within three months from today, failing which he may reconsider the case of Shahzad Mir, if he is satisfied that the petition cannot be disposed of by any means and Shahzad Mir does not contribute towards prolongation. This office should see that the file is des--patched within a week."
3. When we observed that we could see no impropriety in these observa--tions, and that in any event the question of propriety of these observations was 'within the discretion of the High Court, learned counsel submitted that the first respondent had deliberately delayed the hearing of the proceed-- ings in the High Court of the Senior Civil Judge in order to take advantage of the directions given by the High Court that the Senior Civil Judge "may reconsider the case of Shahzad Mir if he is satisfied that the petition cannot be disposed of by any means and Shahzad Mir does not contribute towards prolongation". In view of this grievance, we enquired about the fate of the proceedings in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge and learned counsel stated that the case had come up before the learned Senior Civil Judge on 30-10-1978 but it did not proceed and the case was adjourned to the 10th of December, 1978. In view of the clear direction given by .The High Court for the expeditious disposal of the case, we are unable to understand how the Court of the learned Senior Civil Judge adjourned the case from the 30th of October to the 10th of December, 1978. Such a long adjournment was clearly contrary to the spirit and letter of the direction given by the High Court.
4. Secondly, a casual glance at the calendar would have shown that the 10th of December was likely to be a holiday and as it turned to be a holiday, the case was adjourned again. These circumstances prima facie indicate negligence on the part of the trial Court and the result of this negligence is that the order of the High Court has been defeated,if riot deliberately flouted. We cannot but express our great regret at the delay in the bearing of the case in the trial Court but this would be no ground whatsoever for granting leave. Therefore, the petition is dismissed but the petitioners may, if they so wish, draw the attention of the High Court to the manner in which the High Court's direction for early hearing of the case has been defeated.