JUDGMENT 1. 1. Both these appeals arise out of the order of the court below made in a reference under Section 18 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1954 by which the appellants' claim for compensation has been rejected. Separate orders have been passed in both these cases but they are connected and, therefore, are disposed of by this common order. 2. Proceedings for acquisition of Khasra Nos. 575/2 and 576/2 total area 20 bighas in Tehsil Khetri were commenced to acquire the land for Khetri Copper Project. These lands admittedly recorded as Gair-mumkin Pahad of the Forest Department were ultimately so acquired. The appellant Mangilal in misc. appeal No. 158/80 claimed compensation for acquisition of 10 bighas of khasra No. 576/2 on the ground that he was the person in cultivatory possession of the same, as a result of the land being given to Mangilal by its allottees Mohanlal and Ginnilal and their brothers. However, Mohanlal and Ginnilal also claimed compensation for the acquisition of both these lands khasra Nos. 575/2 and 576/2 claiming to be persons interested in them as allottees of these lands. The claim made by Mohanlal and Ginni Lal was on behalf of themselves as well as their other brothers who too were claiming to be co-allottees of the land. The claims made by Mangilal as well as Mohanlal and Ginnilal were rejected and so also the reference made at their intanace under Section 19 of Land Acquisition Act, hence these separate appeals by them. 3. Having heard counsel for the parties, I am satisfied that both these appeals must be dismissed. Admittedly khasra Nos. 575/2 and 576/2 which arc; claimed to be allotted to Mohanlal. Ginnilal and their brothers in 1957 are shown recorded throughout as Gair-mumkin Pahad of the Forest Department; that these lands were never converted for being used for agriculture purpose according to law; and according to the relevant statutory provisions no valid allotment of such land could have been made to anyone. The quality and the nature of the land which is admitted appears even from the documents flied by the claimants. The court below has placed reliance on the admitted position as well as the evidence of the revenue officers for proof that these lands were not cultivated by anyone nor were in possession of anyone at least for the last 30 years. The court below has placed reliance on the admitted position as well as the evidence of the revenue officers for proof that these lands were not cultivated by anyone nor were in possession of anyone at least for the last 30 years. On the basis even the possession over the land asserted by both sets of claimants, has been held to be disproved. 4. In view of the above position which is evident from the record including the documents relied on by the claimants themselves, it is obvious that neither Mangilal who only claims (illegible) to rival claimants Mohanlal and Ginnilal, nor Mohanlal, Ginnilal and their brothers have any legitimate right in the land acquired to qualify as persons interested in the land for claiming compensation for acquisition. Rejection of the claims of both the sets of claimants by the court below does not appear to suffer from any infirmity. 5. Consequently both the appeals are dismissed with no cost.Appeals dismissed. *******