Mr. Darshan Singh, J.:- The present Regular Second Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 19.11.2014 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Kaithal, vide which the appeal preferred against the judgment and decree dated 24.12.2012, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Kaithal, has been decreed.

2. For the sake of convenience, the status of the parties is being mentioned as in the original suit.

3. The defendants-respondents have filed the suit for declaration to the effect that they are entitled to get 75 % of the amount awarded as compensation for the acquisition of the suit land detailed and described in para no.1 of the plaint situated within the revenue estate of Patti Gaddar, Kaithal, Tehsil and District Kaithal. They also sought a decree of mandatory injunction directing defendant no.1 to recover the total compensation amount paid to defendant no.2 and further pay 75 % of the same to the plaintiffs along with interest at the rate of 18 % per annum since the date of acquisition till its actual realization or in the alternative defendant no.1 may be directed to send the objection filed by the plaintiff under Section 30 and 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘Act’) to the Competent Court of jurisdiction for adjudication and for apportionment of the compensation as per the provisions of law.

4. As per the averments in the plaint, Narinder Singh, the predecessor-in-interest of defendant no.2(appellant) was owner in possession of the suit land. He inducted Daulat Ram son of Nathu Ram resident of Amar Garh Gamri, Kaithal as a tenant at Will over the suit land on payment of Rs. 675/- per annum as rent/lease money vide agreement dated 04.07.1977. Since, 04.07.1977, till his death on 25.01.1999, aforesaid Daulat Ram remained in possession of the suit land in the capacity as tenant. After his death, his tenancy rights were inherited by plaintiffs no.1 and 2 and Prem Singh, the predecessor-in-interest of plaintiffs no.3 to 5. Said Prem Singh had died in June 2007. After his death his tenancy rights were inherited by plaintiffs no. 3 to 5. The tenancy rights of Daulat Ram have been upheld by the Revenue Courts in various judgments and plaintiffs-respondents have been paying rent to appellant-defendant no.2 regularly in those cases in the Court of Assistant Collector-II Grade, Kaithal. Aforesaid Narinder Singh had also entered into an agreement to sell the suit land to Daulat Ram on 08.08.1978 and the date for completion of the sale was extended from time to time. But, he failed to comply with the terms of the agreement to sell. Ultimately, Daulat Ram filed a suit for specific performance of agreement and the said litigation is pending in this Court in R.S.A No. 564 of 1987. The suit land has been acquired by the State of Haryana for carving out Sector 18, Urban Estate, Kaithal and award no.4 dated 16.07.2005 was passed by the Land Acquisition Collector, Hisar. At that time, the plaintiffs were in possession of the suit land in their capacity as tenant at Will. They were dispossessed by defendant no.1/respondent no.6 in pursuance of the aforesaid award. As per the provisions of the Act, a tenant at Will is entitled to 75 % of the amount of the compensation awarded for the acquisition of the land. The plaintiffs raised their claim before defendant no1. By filing the objections under Section 30 and 31 of the Act. But, without getting their objections adjudicated upon from the Competent Court of jurisdiction, defendant no.1 in collusion with defendant no.2 disbursed the compensation amount to defendant no.2. Defendant no. 2 also filed a civil suit no. 162 of 2006, titled as Didar Singh VS. Nar Singh in collusion with defendant no.1 on 14.06.2006 seeking declaration that revenue entries showing possession of Daulat Ram were wrong and illegal and restraining the plaintiffs from availing any benefit from the department on the basis of those revenue entries. That suit was go