( 1 ). These are two appeals both filed under: section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the Act ) against a common judgment dated 14 February 1969 of the learned Additional District Judge (A. D. J. ). The A. D. J. had given his judgment on a reference made to him under sections 30 and 31 of the Act. This was done by the Award No. 1426 dated 28 November 1962 of the Land Acquisition Collector I, Delhi ( collector for short ). The A. D. J. said that appellants in both the appeals shall be entitled to 50% of the amount of compensation awarded by the Collector in his aforesaid award, and rest of the amount of compensation, he said, would be sent back to the Collector.

( 2 ). A chunk of land in village Rajpur Chhawni, Delhi, was notified to be acquired under section 4 of the Act. After necessasry declaration and notifications under the Act the Award No. 1426 was made on 28 November 1962. The Collector arrived at a particular figure of compensation which in his opinion was to be allowed for the acquired land. In respect of the lands of the appellants the Collector found that they were old tenants on the Government land and yet claimed that whole of the compensation be paid to them and none to the Government though it was the Government who was shown as owner in the revenue records. The appellants had said they were actually the owners. The Collector, however, found that the appellants gave no documents to support their claim of ownership or even as to how they became tenants and if so what was the condition of the lease. From the revenue records the Collector found that they were paying some rent to the Government and the land revenue. The appellants also said that they had let out their land to different tenants and as per their lease deed the appellants were entitled to compensation. One Chhaju Singh claimed sub-tenant of appellant Ratan Singh (RFA 389/69) in 11 bighas and 11 biswas of land. He rather said the whole of the compensation be paid to him. The Collector, therefore, observed that the point regarding the apportionment of compensation between the owners, tenants and sub-tenants was rather tortuous and depended upon several factors and he said he was not in a position to make the correct apportionment regarding that land. The compensation of the land, therefore, he sent to the District Judge for apportionment. In the appeal of Ratan Singh (RFA 389/ 69) we are not concerned with the amount of compensation arrived at by the Collector or the apportionment of that between the appellant and their sub-tenants as it was stated before us that their dispute inter-se has been mutually settled by them among themselves. The appellant Surat Singh (RFA 397/69) said he was a hereditory occupancy tenant on the land and he alone was entitled to the amount. Similarly, Ratan Singh (RFA 389/69) also claimed whole of the amount of compensation. Respondent Union of India denied their claims and rather said none of the appellants was entitled to any compensation. It was denied that they were occupancy tenants.

( 3 ). On the pleadings of the parties, the A. D. J. framed the following issues :-

RFA 389/69: 1. (a) Was Rattan Singh an occupany tenant in the acquired land covered by item No. 25 and 26 under the Union of India ? (b) If so what may be fair and reasonable apportionment between UOI and Rattan Singh ? 2. What may be the fair and reasonable apportionment of compensation as between Rattan Singh and Chajju ? RFA 397/69: 1. Was Surat Singh perpetual lessee in the acquired land ? If so, to what share in compenssation is he entitled ? 2. Are Girdhari Lal and Sadha Singh transferee of the rights of Surat Singh and as such entitled to compensation to the exclusion of Surat Singh? 3. If issue No. 2 be decided against Girdhari Lal and Sadha Singh to what share in compensation are. they entitled out of the compensation admissible to Surat Singh ?

( 4 ). As noted above, issue No. 2 in RFA 389/69 and issues 2 and 3 in RF