HARKESH MANUJA, J. (Oral)

[1]. By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to the order dated 12.04.2005 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ambala (hereinafter to be referred as the ‘Reference Court’) whereby the Reference petition under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the 1894 Act’) preferred at the instance of the private respondent nos.1 to 3 was partly accepted.

[2]. In the present case, the dispute relates to the estate left by the deceased Kishna, who was owner in possession of certain land forming part of the two revenue estates of villages Rampur and Dhakila, Tehsil and District Ambala which was acquired vide Notifications dated 31.07.1996 and 30.07.1997 issued under Sections 4 & 6 of the 1894 Act, respectively, followed by passing of Award under Section 11 of the 1894 Act by the Land Acquisition Collector (for short ‘the LAC’) on 28.07.1999.

[3]. The dispute with respect to the apportionment of the compensation was raised at the instance of private respondent Nos.1 to 3 while claiming themselves to be the stakeholders to the extent of 4/5th share in the acquired property having asserted that the Mohinder Singh, predecessor in-interest of appellants herein was entitled for only 1/5th share in the compensation.

[4]. The aforesaid claim was opposed at the instance of the appellants while stating that there was a Will dated 18.01.1984 executed by the deceased Kishna in their favour with respect to his entire landholdings.

[5]. Upon framing of issues, the learned Reference Court vide its order dated 12.04.2005 adjudicated upon the claim of the respective parties by accepting the plea raised on behalf of the private respondent nos.1 to 3. The relevant part of therefrom is extracted hereunder:-

“16. The reference is answered with the observation that the petitioners are entitled to 4/5 share in equal shares and respondents are entitled to 1/5 share in equal shares of the amount of compensation in respect of the acquired land measuring 1 kanal 6 marlas situated in village Dhakila and 16 Kanals 8-1/2 marlas in village Rampur belonging to the deceased Kishna. The amount of compensation be paid accordingly to the petitioners and the respondents which has been deposited by the LAC in the Court.”

CONTENTION(S):-

ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT(S):-

[6]. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned Reference Court erred having recorded that the private respondent nos.1 to 3 were entitled for grant of compensation to the extent of 4/5th share in the entire acquired land pertaining to the revenue estate of village Rampur as well as Dhakila. He points out that the Civil Suit No.6/CS of 1984 titled ‘Lal Chand and other Vs. Mohinder deceased through his LRs’ filed at the instance of respondent nos.1 to 3 against the appellants, wherein the validity of Will dated 18.01.1984 was assailed, the land comprised in khasra Nos. 12//11/1 (4-0) and 196 (1-11) out of the total land measuring 56 Kanal 11 Marla, situated in the revenue estate of village Rampur was not detailed and therefore, the findings recorded by the learned trial Court in the said suit vide judgment and decree dated 15.10.1996; judgment and decree dated 19.02.2001 (Ex.C-1 and Ex.C-2) by the learned First Appellate Court and also the decision dated 17.05.2003 passed by this Court in RSA No.1173 of 2001 (Ex.C-3) with respect to the said property being ancestral in nature in the hands of deceased Kishna was not to be made applicable on the said khasra numbers as the same did not form part of the land details of the suit property therein.

[6.1]. Learned counsel also points out that the learned Reference Court also fell in error for holding respondent nos.1 to 3 to be entitled for 4/5th share in the acquired land forming part of revenue estate of village Dhakila regarding which no suit was ever filed by respondent nos.1 to 3 and thus, the same being succeeded by the appellants in terms of Will dated 18.01.1984, the