The vesting of title in the State Government under the Land Acquisition Act occurs upon taking possession of the land either under Sec. 16 or Sec. 17. Ex-landlords whose estate has vested in the State Government under the Land Reforms Act are not entitled to compensation for the acquired land.

1. This appeal arises out of a land acquisition Reference case under Sec.30 of the Land Acquisition Act. The occupancy tenant of the land which was acquired is the appellant. The ex-landlords, that is, the landlords before the vesting of the estate as well as the State of Bihar are the respondents. A notification under Sec. 4 and a declaration under Sec. 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (to be referred to hereafter as the Act) were issued in respect of 3.396 acres with a jama of Rs. 36-4-0 in plot No. 3377 under tauzi No. 2698 in the district of Monghyr. The present tenant appellant filed her claim before the Collector and on the 25th March, 1955, an award was made under Sec.11 of the Act determining the amount of compensation. Since there was some dispute about the apportionment of compensation, a reference was made by the Collector under Sec.30 of the Act. We have looked to the original reference and found that the name of ex-landlords were not mentioned in that reference. But it appears from Ext. 1, a certified copy of the application which was filed by some of the ex-landlords before the Collector on the 31st of March, 1955, that they had asked notice to he given to all the ex-landlords and for that purpose process fee of Rs. 3 was attached to that petition. Subsequent to that, on the 3rd of May, 1955, the reference was made by the Collector under Sec.30, yet the name of the ex-landlords did not appear in that. One batch of the ex-landlords, that is, the Singhs made ah application on the 10th of April, 1957, before the Court where the reference was pending to he added as parties, and an order was passed by it on the 29th April, 1957, for bringing them on record as parties. A similar application from another set of ex-fandlords. the Chaudharis, who had 8 annas interest, was made on the 17th of December. 1956, for the same purpose of being added as parties to the pending reference, but no order was passed on that application till the reference case was disposed of and the decree was drawn up, subsequent to which the notice of the Court was drawn to their previous application, and on the 11th of September, 1958, the decree was amended and they were included in the decree as entitled to receive a portion of the compensation. The State of Eihar was already before the reference Court as the reference appears to have been made at their instance by the Collector.

2. By, the judgment passed on the 8th of July, 1957, in a number of reference cases, the particular reference case No. 33 of 1956 out of which the present appeal arises was disposed of The tenant, Srimati Kanika Haldar, contended before the reference Court that she was entitled to the entire compensation money as awarded by the Collector except the portion that may be payable to the landlords on the basis of capitalisation of the cash rent that was determined under Sec. 40B of the Bihar Tenancy Act in respect of the rent of the trees standing on the land in question. Admittedly there were 116 trees on this land and a proceeding under Sec. 40B of the Tenancy Act ended in commuting that rent of trees at Rs. 36-4-0 per year. The land had been described as bhaoli in the settlement papers. The ex-landlords contend that they were entitled in addition to the capitalised amount of the cash rent for the trees, a portion of the total compensation in proportion to what they were entitled to get by way of bhaoli rent from the land. The learned District Judge came to the conclusion that the ex-landlords as well as the tenants were entitled to get the compensation, the former on the capitalised value of the rent that was payable to them for the land which was acquired. IK his view the land still continued to be bhauli and the landlords were entitled to get 9/11th share out of the compensation fixed under the award. It is against this that the tenant has come in appeal. We should also mention here that the learned District Judge also took the view that the land should be dee