1. The appellants have challenged the judgment dated 24th January, 1990, in Land Reference No. 75 of 1996 whereby the learned Joint District Judge, Thane has apportioned 50% of compensation in favour of the petitioner and the balance 50% in favour of the respondents.

2. The Government had acquired land admeasuring 1 Acre 26 Gunthas and 8 Annas from Survey No. 26/9 of Village Koparkhairane, Thane. By Award dated 9th April, 1973, the Land Acquisition Officer had awarded compensation of Rs.57,523.70 paise in respect of the said land. Upon receipt of the notice, the original claimant Vithu had appeared before the Land Acquisition Officer and claimed that he was the exclusive tenant/purchaser of the acquired land and hence he was entitled to receive the entire compensation. The respondents had claimed that their father Gajanan was a co-tenant of the acquired land and that they were entitled for 50% of the compensation. In view of the dispute relating to the apportionment of the compensation, the Land Acquisition Officer by letter dated 23rd October, 1986 referred the dispute to the decision of the Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

3. The original claimant Vithu filed his statement of claim wherein he claimed that he was the sole tenant of the acquired land. He claimed that he had purchased the said land in the proceedings under Section 32(G) of the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural land Act. He further claimed that upon paying the purchase price, Certificate of purchase under Section 32 M was issued in his favour on 20th July, 1966. He has stated that his name was recorded in the survey records after deleting the name of the landlord Fazal Karmali, under Mutation Entry No. 1019 dated 30th August, 1972. The original claimant therefore claimed that being the exclusive owner, he was entitled to receipt the entire compensation.

4. The respondents claim that as on tiller's day Changa Agaskar was in possession of the said land as a tenant thereof. After the death of Changa, the land was jointly cultivated by his sons Vithu and Gajanan. The respondents, who are the children of Gajanan, claim that the land was never partitioned and that even after the death of Changa and Gajanan, they continued to cultivate the land as a Joint Family Property. The respondents have denied that Vithu was the sole tenant/purchaser of the property. They have stated that the Vithu had paid the purchase price of the acquired land out of the sale proceeds of the joint family land. The respondents therefore claimed that being the co-tenants of the property, they are entitled to 50% of the compensation.

5. Upon considering the evidence adduced by the respective parties, the reference Court held that the original claimant Vithu had failed to establish that he is the sole tenant in possession of the acquired land. The reference Court further held that Changa, the deceased father of Vithu and Gajanan was the tenant of the acquired land, and after the death of Changa, his sons Vithu and Gajanan continued to cultivate the property as tenants. The learned Judge therefore held that the acquired land was a joint family property. Hence, the Certificate of purchase issued in favour of the original claimant Vithu under Section 32M of the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Land Act (hereinafter referred to as BT&AL Act) would not confer exclusive title on the appellants. The Reference Court therefore held that the respondents, being the co-tenants of the property were entitled for 50% of the compensation. Being aggrieved by this judgment, the appellants, who are the legal representatives of Vithu have preferred this appeal.

6. Shri Sandesh Patil, the learned Counsel for the appellants has submitted that the original claimant Vithu had purchased the land under Section 32G of the BT&AL Act. He submits that the certificate of purchase which is being issued in favour of Vithu under Section 32M of BT&AL Act conclusively proves that he was the sole tenant/purchas