ORDER : 1. We heard this matter at some length on 17-2-87. The appellant's counsel submitted before us that certain important documents which he wanted to produce before the High Court could not be made available before the High Court since his application for production of those documents remained undisposed of. The appellant's case is that these documents would clearly show that the title to the properties acquired belongs to them. 2. For our satisfaction, as a special case, we directed the Collector for a report on the allegation made by the appellant and for production of original records. We did so on the undertaking given by the appellants' counsel that if on verification of the documents it is found that they did not relate to the property acquired he would not press this appeal. We were influenced by the submission by the appellants' counsel that an officer had played fraud on the appellants. 3. An affidavit is filed today by one Niranjan Biswal on behalf of the Collector of Cuttack, who is working in the office of Land Acquisition Department, Collector of Cuttack who is looking after the present appeal swearing to the fact that the documents referred to in paragraph 15 by the appellants in their application under Order 41, Rule 17 were brought to this Court once. Since they were required in First Appeal No. 30 of 1975 as on their own relevant for that case, they were produced in that case. It is further stated in the affidavit that "from the perusal of the documents it is clear that the documents mentioned at paragraph 15 are not connected at all with the present case". 4. We do not see any reason to suspect the statements contained in the affidavit that the documents to be produced by the appellants do not relate to the present case. We adjourned the appeal only to satisfy ourselves whether the appellants case was justified or not. 5. We are told today that in a compensation appeal regarding the same property, numbered as Civil Appeal 696 of 1973, of this Court, the appellants here who were respondents remained ex-parte. The present counsel appearing for them here appeared for the Collector in that case. Even though that appeal related to compensation, the appellants would have appeared in that case if they were interested in agitating their title to the property. 6. The present counsel appearing for them here appeared for the Collector in that case. Even though that appeal related to compensation, the appellants would have appeared in that case if they were interested in agitating their title to the property. 6. In this case the appellants counsel had not filed his vakalatnama. Still we heard him to find out whether there is any merit in the appeal. We are not satisfied that any interference is called for. Accordingly we dismiss the appeal without any order as to costs.