JUDGMENT : Sudhir Agarwal, J. 1. This is an interesting petition wherein an Employees' Union has challenged award of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Sitapur (hereinafter referred to as “Reference Court”) in Land Acquisition Reference No. 15 of 2011 on a reference made under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1894”) for determining entitlement of disbursement of compensation though admittedly acquired land does not belong to petitioner. 2. Facts in brief, as evident from the pleadings in the writ petition are, that there was a partnership firm namely, “M/s Plywood Products” having its registered office at Plywood Point, Zeenat Market, 106/396, Hiraganj, Kanpur. There was another Corporate body namely, “M/s Sitapur Plywood Manufacturers Ltd.” which is a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1956”). “M/s Plywood Products” had purchased agricultural land at Sitapur and established factory for manufacturing plywood products thereat. Vide Agreement of lease dated 30.06.1973, factory situated at Sitapur and agricultural land was leased out by “M/s Plywood Products” to “M/s Sitapur Plywood Manufacturers Ltd.”. 3. A winding up petition was filed before Company Judge of this Court i.e. Company Petition No. 73 of 1999 in the matter of “M/s Sitapur Plywood Manufacturers Ltd.” and order of winding up was passed on 24.01.2000. An Official Liquidator was appointed to take assets of said Company. When land, buildings, plants, machinery etc. of plywood factory sought to be taken over, an objection was filed before this Court by “M/s Plywood Products” that entire land, buildings, plants etc. is owned by a partnership firm and it was leased out to Company on 30.06.1973 and said lease was terminated on 30.11.1999, therefore, said assets cannot be taken over after passing order of winding up of Company since leased property does not belong to Company. It was revealed before Company Judge that “M/s Sitapur Plywood Manufacturers Ltd.” had secured certain loans from Central Bank of India and as a guarantee to the same, “M/s Plywood Products”, a partnership firm, mortgaged entire land and buildings situate at Sitapur to Central Bank of India for advancement of said loan to “M/s Sitapur Plywood Manufacturers Ltd”. 4. It was revealed before Company Judge that “M/s Sitapur Plywood Manufacturers Ltd.” had secured certain loans from Central Bank of India and as a guarantee to the same, “M/s Plywood Products”, a partnership firm, mortgaged entire land and buildings situate at Sitapur to Central Bank of India for advancement of said loan to “M/s Sitapur Plywood Manufacturers Ltd”. 4. In these circumstances, Company Judge passed order dated 02.05.2006 holding that land and buildings of plywood factory and agricultural land is owned by “M/s Plywood Products” but mortgaged to Central Bank of India to secure advances to “M/s Sitapur Plywood Manufacturers Ltd.”, therefore, Official Liquidator shall hand over possession of said land and buildings to Central Bank of India and Bank shall hold possession for due performance of settlement which has entered into between the parties. 5. Notification dated 25.09.2006 was published under Section 3-G(3) of National Highways Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as “N.H. Act, 1956”) and thereby land bearing Gata Nos. 79, Area 0.246 hectare; 81, Area 0.206 hectare and 82, Area 0.070 hectare situated at Hussainganj, Pargana Khairabad, Tehsil and District Sitapur was sought to be acquired. Said land belong to “M/s Plywood Products”. Award was published by Collector determining compensation on 24.04.2009. An application was filed by petitioner, Plywood Karmchari Sangthan through its Secretary, Sri Arya Bandhu Arya before Land Acquisition Officer on 26.07.2007 and reminders were also given on 10.07.2007 and 10.09.2008 stating that payment of dues of employees of more than Rs. 10 crores was already subject matter of adjudication in Special Appeal No. 372 of 2007 before this Court wherein an interim order was passed on 29.03.2007 restraining an interference regarding status of disputed property, therefore, no compensation should be paid to alleged partners of “M/s Plywood Products” till the matter is pending before High Court. Collector made Reference to District Judge, Sitapur under Section 18 of Act, 1894 vide letter dated 28.12.2010 to determine issue of ownership and apportionment of compensation and thereafter, impugned order has been passed on 12.04.2017 by Reference Court holding that Gata Nos. 79, 80 and 81 are entered into Revenue record in the name of “M/s Plywood Products”, a partnership firm, and that be so, either Company or Employees of Company have no connection with the same. 6. 79, 80 and 81 are entered into Revenue record in the name of “M/s Plywood Products”, a partnership firm, and that be so, either Company or Employees of Company have no connection with the same. 6. Challenging aforesaid order, present petition has been filed stating that virtually, there is no distinction between “Company” and “Firm” and partners and directors are inter-related, hence, on the amount of compensation payable to firm, Employees have first charge and it is to be distributed first for satisfying dues of workers as provided in Section 529, 529A and 530 of Act, 1956. 7. On behalf of Firm, writ petition has been contested by respondent-4 stating that since acquired property belong to Firm which has nothing to do to the satisfaction of dues of Company and, therefore, petitioner cannot claim any charge over the property of Firm and provisions of Act, 1956 are not at all applicable to “M/s Plywood Products”, a partnership firm and writ petition is thoroughly misconceived. 8. No other Official party is contesting the matter. It appears that they have no interest in the lease since there is no problem in distribution of compensation to the person entitled pursuant to land in question. 9. I have heard Sri Prasoon Srivastava, learned counsel for petitioner; and, Sri Murli Manohar Srivastava, Advocate and learned Standing Counsel for respondent-1. 10. Basic facts as borne out from record are that a partnership firm was formed sometimes in 1939 under the name and title of “Plywood Products” for the purpose of manufacturing plywood products etc. Partners of Firm initially were Britishers. Subsequently, there was a change in the constitution of partners of Firm. Vide Agreement dated 28.06.1965, some more people were inducted as partners, (copy thereof is Annexure-2 to the writ petition) but I do not find it necessary to give further details of partners since it has no relevance for the issue in question. 11. Plywood Products i.e. Firm purchased agricultural land measuring 29.82 Acres in Sitapur and in the Revenue record also, name of Firm was mutated. In 1973, vide Registrar of Companies (hereinafter referred to as “ROC”) certificate dated 30.06.1973, “M/s Sitapur Plywood Manufacturers Limited”, Sitapur, a Company came to be incorporated and certificate for commencement of business was issued by ROC. It is said that Directors of Company were also partners in the Firm but the fact remains that both are different entities. In 1973, vide Registrar of Companies (hereinafter referred to as “ROC”) certificate dated 30.06.1973, “M/s Sitapur Plywood Manufacturers Limited”, Sitapur, a Company came to be incorporated and certificate for commencement of business was issued by ROC. It is said that Directors of Company were also partners in the Firm but the fact remains that both are different entities. There are some subsequent changes in the constitution of partners in the Firm as also the Directors in the Company but in my view, that is not of much relevance or legal consequences for the reason that Firm and Company, both are separate entities in law and the mere fact that some directors and partners were same persons, would not mean that Firm and Company were not two different entities. It also appears that Firm let out its Plywood Factory, agricultural land, building and machines to Company by an Agreement of lease dated 30.06.1973. The said Agreement was terminated on 30.11.1999. 12. Company fell in trouble and approached High Court filing winding up petition whereupon order of winding up was passed on 24.01.2000 in Company Petition No. 73 of 1999. With respect to property i.e. Plywood Factory and agricultural land owned by Firm, Company Judge categorically has observed that the same is the property of Firm and cannot be retained by Official Liquidator who was directed to take over assets of Company and the said property, therefore, was directed to be handed over to Central Bank of India with whom “M/s Plywood Products” i.e. Firm, has mortgaged aforesaid property. 13. In these facts and circumstances and in this backdrop, in my view, for satisfaction of dues of workers of Company, preferential rights and first charge under the provisions of Act, 1956 can be applied only to the assets and properties of Company and not that of Plywood Product. Moreover, Firm is duly registered under the partnership firm which itself is a legal entity and that is not a party in the present writ petition. Only one partner is impleaded as respondent-4. The land of Firm has been acquired and, therefore, Firm and its partners who have joint and several liabilities, are entitled for payment of compensation and said amount of compensation cannot be directed to be disbursed or retained or reserved for satisfaction of dues of workers of Company. In this regard, provisions of Act, 1956 are not at all attracted. 14. In this regard, provisions of Act, 1956 are not at all attracted. 14. Writ petition is devoid of merit. Dismissed accordingly.