JUDGMENT
B.C. Patel, C.J.
1. The present appeal is preferred by the appellant against the judgment delivered by the learned Additional District Judge on 28.1.1989 in LAC No. 2/84 where the learned Judge was required to decide on reference under Section 30/31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for certain land situated in village Lado Sarai which was acquired vide award no. 64/83-84 dated 20.10.1983.
2. The notification under Section 4 was issued on 23rd January, 1965 while declaration under Section 6 was issued on 6.1.1969. There is no dispute that after following the procedure laid down in the Act the award was made by the Land Acquisition Collecton. However, there was a dispute with regard to entitlement and apportionment and hence the claim was referred to the court for determination. The court on examining all the material placed before it held that the present appellants are not entitled to share as the present respondents were Bhumidars under the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954.
3. The competent court under the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 after considering the provisions contained therein and more particularly Section 192, by an order dated 26-6-1972 declared that the respondent is a Bhumidar. This was challenged by way of an appeal by the present appellants. The appeal was dismissed on 28.2.1974 which was the subject matter of second appeal wherein also the appellants lost vide order dated 14.4.1975 and the same was not challenged further. The award was made on 20th January, 1983. It is in view of this admitted position that the learned counsel for the appellants has confined his claim only with regard to apportionment of the share.
4. It is true that the respondents were declared a tenant under the Delhi Land Reforms Act. However it does not mean that they are entitled to get the whole compensation. The appellants being landlord should also be held entitled to get compensation but in what proportion it is to be awarded is the question.
5. We had an occasion to examine similar aspect in RFA No. 383/80 (Moti Lal Jain v. Mukhtiar Singh) decided on 7th February, 2005. After considering various aspects this court held that the reference court has taken into consideration the entries made in the revenue records and the apportionment had been rightly made on the basis of 40:60 between the owner and the respondent. Keeping this in mind we are of the opinion that in the same proportion the amount of compensation should be distributed between the landlord and the tenant.
6. In view thereof we partly allow the appeal to the extent that the appellants are held entitled to 40% of the compensation while 60% falls to the share of the respondents.