( 1 ) ON the last date of hearing we heard the parties at length and pronounced judgment on certain issues. The order passed is as under: 1. Notification under Section 4 of the land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was issued on 13. 11. 1959 in respect of the land in question situated in village Lado Sarai. Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 16. 5. 1996 which resulted in award No. 38/80-81. The Land acquisition Collector fixed different values of land in respect of different categories being Category a , b ,. c and d .

( 2 ) THE appellant aggrieved by the same preferred reference under Section 18 of the said Act and in respect of categories b and c some enhancement was granted.

( 3 ) THE dispute really is not confined only to the quantum of compensation but also to entitiement of the appellant in view of the fact that in pursuance of the order of Revenue assistant the land stood vested in the Gaon sabha. Both the Land Acquisition Collector and the Reference Court found that the appellants were not entitled to any compensation in view of the land having vested with the Gaon Sabha.

( 4 ) THE appellants aggrieved by the same have preferred the present appeal.

( 5 ) IN so far as the dispute of quantum of compensation is concerned, learned counsel for the parties state that the matter is no more res Integra in view of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in RFA No. 55/1982 (Basti Ram Vs. U. O. I.) decided on 25. 11. 1999 which was followed in Raj Kumar (deceased) through L. Rs. Vs. U. O. I. 91 (2001) DLT 252 (DB) fixing the land value for the same village and in respect of the same notification. The land value has been determined at Rs. 12,100/- per bigha uniformally apart from other benefits under the Act.

( 6 ) THE question thus which is really in dispute is about the entitlement of the appellants to get the compensation

( 7 ) THERE has been two fold submissions on behalf of learned counsel for the appellants. The first submission arises from a judgment of civil court in a suit filed by the appellants claiming rights in respect of the land. It is not disputed that the suit was decided in favour of the appellants and no appeal was preferred. The submission made by learned counsel for the appellants is that in view thereof that the appellants must be held entitled to the compensation.

( 8 ) IT really cannot be disputed before us that the competent court in this behalf is the revenue Court specially in view of the subsequent pronouncement in Hatti Vs. Sunder Singh AIR 1971 S. C. 2320 and the civil court would have no jurisdiction in the matter.

( 9 ) HOWEVER, learned counsel for the appellants submits that despite this judgment, the appellants would be entitled to the compensation. This is really based on legal submission that even civil court did not have jurisdiction, it had framed the issue, decided the issue in favour of the appellants and the judgment was accepted by the respondent. It is thus submitted that lack of jurisdiction of the civil court on this issue cannot come in the way of the appellants. On being specifically asked whether there is any case laws to support this contention, learned counsel for the appellants seeks some time. It is only for appreciating this submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that we defer the decision on this point to the next date of hearing.

( 10 ) THE second plea of learned counsel for the appellants was based on the fact that the revenue Assistant exercised powers for mutating the land in favour of Gaon Sabha based on a notification issued by the Deputy commissioner Mr. Satish Chandra on 1. 11. 1954. The said notification stands quashed in appeal No. 7-D of 1963 (Ramjas vs. Gaon Sabha) decided on 29. 4. 1965 by the Circuit Bench at Delhi of the High Court of punjab. This issue is thus linked to the fact as to whether the Revenue Assistant exercised the powers in view of this notification. Learned counse