The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the rights of the Gram Panchayat and the claimants under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and the apportionment of compensation based on their respective rights.

R. L. Anand, J.

1. This judgment disposes of RFA No.666 of 1997 and also the application under Order 41 Rule 27 C. P. C. filed by the appellant.

2. This appeal has been directed against the judgment dated 24.1.1997, passed by the additional District Judge, Gurgaon, who apportioned the compensation vis-a-vis the appellants and respondents No.1 and 2 and it was held that respondents No.1 and 2 are entitled to get 3/4th share of the compensation while Gram Panchayat-appellant is entitled to get the remaining l/4th share of the compensation.

3. The facts of the case are as follows: A reference under Sec.30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 , was moved by Ram Rikh, tej Ram, Pirbhu, Bhagwana, Bhule and Ganga sahai, against the Gram Panchayat Kanehi and others. Pursuant to Notification No. AC (G)90/211 dated 20.4.1990, published in the haryana Govt. Gazette (Extra Ordinary) on the same day under Sec.4 of the Act, followed by Notification No. LAC-G-91/ntla/278 dated 18.4.1991, issued under Sec.6 of the Act, land measuring 1068.64 acres of village Jharsa Kanehi, Bindapur and Samaspur, was acquired by the Government of Haryana for public puposes. Award No.8 of the year 1992-93 was given by Shri K. K. Sharma, the then Land Acquisition Collector, Gurgaon, regarding the land measuring 948.95 acres. Ram rikh and others made a claim before the Land acquisition Collector alleging that the Gram panchayat had no right or interest in the acquired land and prayed that the compensation regarding the Shamilat Deh land which was acquired by the State of Haryana, be given to them. The case of Ram Rikh and others was that they were entitled to get compensation regarding the land of Panchayat Deh which was acquired by the State of Haryana and that the Gram Panchayat was not entitled to get the compensation regarding the same. It was pleaded by Ram Kumar and Khem Ram that, ram Kumar was the owner in possession as gair Marusi of Khewat No.149/188, Rect. No.31, Killa No.14/2 (3-2) 17 (8-0) 24 (8-0)and Rect. No.41, Killa No.4 (8-0), total measuring 27 kanals 2 marlas for more than thirty years. Khem Ram was owner in possession as gair Marusi of land comprised in Khewat/ khata No.149/198, Rect. No.45, Killa No.15 (8-0) situated in village Kanehi, Tehsil and district Gurgaon for the last thirty years. It was pleaded by Bhagwati and others that the land comprised in khewat/khata No.149/194 rect. No.37, Killa No.14 (8-3), 15 (6-13), Rect. No.38 Killa No.11 (5-0), measuring 19 kanals 16 marlas was in occupation of Dholidars on account of Punarth and the Gram Panchayat was having no relation with the same. The applicants who were Dholidars were entitled to receive compensation regarding the same. It was pleaded by the Gram Panchayat that the applicants-claimants were not entitled to seek compensation regarding the acquired land.

4. The record of the trial Court shows that on 27.1.1994, some persons filed a compromise before the Court stating that they shall not claim right, title or interest in the compensation of the acquired land and that the entire compensation be given to Gram Panchayat kanehi which is entitled to receive the same. The controversy however, remained between khem Ram and Ram Kumar and Smt. Bhagwati and others and on their asking the matter was referred by the Collector under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for determination.

5. Pleadings of the parties gave rise to the following issues:

1. What was the market price of the acquired land at the time of acquisition? Op parties.2 Whether Gram Panchayat alone is owner of the acquired land and is entitled to claim whole of compensations? OPGP 3. Whether Smt. Bhagwati etc. are dholidars of the acquired land and are entitled to claim compensation? OP Dholidars.4. Whether Khem Ram and Ram kumar are the tenants on the acquired land and are entitled to claim compensation? OP Khem Ram etc.5. Relief.

6. Parties were given opportunities to lead evidence and on the conclusion of the proceeding