JUDGMENT Kamlesh Sharma, J.—Petitioner Parkash Chand has preferred this Revision petition under section 115, C.P.C. against the judgment dated 22-8-1988 passed by the District Judge, Una, in Land Reference Case No. 130 of 1987 whereby the following directions were issued i— (i) The compensation amount of Rs, 91,450 be paid to the members of the Proprietary body of village Barsara as per their share in the Khewat; (ii) The petitioner, Parkash Chand (respondent No. 2 in the Reference case) was ordered to refund the amount of compensation received from the Collector, Una (respondent No. 1 in the Reference case) ; and (iii) the costs of litigation were ordered to be borne by the petitioner Parkash Chand and Collector Una (respondents No. 1 and 2 in the Reference case). 2. Petitioner Parkash Chand is mainly aggrieved by the second direction. He does not dispute that the acquired land was jointly owned by the proprietary body of village Barsara, Tehsil and District Una. According to him, he had received the compensation amount of Rs. 91,450 on behalf of Gram Panchayat. Chamkaur, Tehsil and District Una, in his capacity as its Pradhan and deposited it in the Panchayat fund, Gram Panchayat Chamkaur had authorised him to receive the payment on its behalf and spend it on welfare of the residents of village Bsrsara as desired by them. But 27 members of the proprietary body filed reference claiming compensation amount according to their share in the Khewat as the land belonged to them. Their case was that petitioner Parkash Chand had no right to receive payment being Pradhan of Gram Panchayat, Chamkaur, as the land did not belong to the Gram Panchayat. The Collector, Una, admitted the claim of respondents No 2 to 28 (applicants in the Reference case) but alleged that Refund Voucher was given to petitioner Parkash Chand at the instance of the proprietary body Petitioner Parkash Chand took the stand that he had received the amount of compensation on behalf of Gram Panchayat for spending it for the welfare of the residents of village Barsara, After trial, on the basis of evidence on record, the District Judge has held that petitioner Parkash Chand (respondent No. 2 in the reference case) was not able to show any authority of proprietary body of village Barsara to receive the compensation amount on their behalf. Therefore, direction was made to him to refund the compensation amount, 3. Sh. H K. Bhardwaj, appearing on behalf of respondents No 2 to 28, has raised objection that revision under section 115, C.P.C. is not maintainable, He submits that the impugned order is an award passed under section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter called the Act) on a reference made by the Collector which is appealable under section 54 of the Act. On the other hand, Sh. S. 3, Kanwar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Parkash Chand, urges that his client is not disputing the award but only a part of it whereby he has been ordered to refund the amount of compensation received by him from the Collector, Una For making this submission, Sh Kanwar has relied upon Mt Gohar Sultan v. Alt Muhammad. AIR 1921 Lahore 153; Makhan Lal and others v. Secy, of State, AIR 1934 All 260 ; Rahimuddin Sheikh and others v Sarifan Nesa and others. AIR 1954 Assam 92 and Ahmad Hossain v Bibi Naeman and others, AIR 1963 Patna 30. 4. All these cases are distinguishable on the facts of each case. In Mt Gohar Sultan v All Muhammad (supra) the impugned order, which was found revisable and not appealable, was passed by the Court in proceedings under the Act directing a party to refund the money which was awarded to it as compensation. The Lahore High Court did not hold the impugned order as award passed in the reference made by the Collector under section 18 or 30 of the Act In the present case, the direction is to petitioner Parkash Chand who was neither awarded nor entitled to be awarded compensation under the Act. He bad wrongly received the compensation amount on the pretext that he was authorised to receive the same as Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat. Above all, there is no dispute that the impugned order in the present case is an award passed by the District Judge in a reference made by the Collector under section 30 of the Act which is appealable under section 54 of the Act The District Judge has decided about the rights of respondent Nos 2 to 28 that they are entitled to compensation amount being owners of the land. Direction to refund the awarded amount received illegally and unauthorisedly by petitioner Parkash Chand is part of the award and cannot be separated from rest of the award to hold that direction made to petitioner Parkash Chand is revisable and rest of the award is appealable. Similarly, in Makhan Lal and others v Secy of State (supra) the order found revisable was an order passed by the District Judge declining to exercise jurisdiction under section 18 of the Act and was not an award deciding the rights of the parties as envisaged under sections 18 and 30 of the Act In Rahimuddin Sheikh and others v Sarifan Nesa and others (supra), the order impugned was of land acquisition Judge dismissing the petitioners application for restoration of his previous application dismissed for default which was found revisable and not appealable under section 54 of the Act, In Ahmad Hossain v. Bibi Naeman and others (supra), also the impugned order which was found revisable and not appealable under section 54 of the Act was of holding assignee entitled to withdraw the amount of compensation deposited in the Court as the awardee had transferred the decree by deed of assignment. 5. All these cases have been referred to and discussed In A. M. Chengaharaya Chetty v, The Collector of Madras and others, AIR 1965 Mad 376, and the learned Judges in para 10 of their judgment held that i— “......Orders passed by a Court, on a reference made to it under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, finally disposing of it, must, in our view, be subject to an appeal, as they will have the effect of either confirming the award or adjudicating title to the compensation amount, which will be res judicata in later proceedings. It will be immaterial on what ground such orders are passed by the Court, whether it be on the merits or on some technical point." 6. Taking support from A. M. Chengalvarayas case (supra) I uphold the objection raised by Sh. H. K. Bhardwaj, learned Counsel for the respondents The impugned order including the direction made to petitioner Parkash Chand is an award passed by the District Judge in a reference made by the Collector under section 30 of the Act and is appealable under section 54 of the Act. H. K. Bhardwaj, learned Counsel for the respondents The impugned order including the direction made to petitioner Parkash Chand is an award passed by the District Judge in a reference made by the Collector under section 30 of the Act and is appealable under section 54 of the Act. By this award not only respondents No. 2 to 28 have been held to be entitled to compensation amount being owners of the acquired land but it has been held that petitioner Parkash Chand had no right or authority to receive the compensation amount on behalf of the Gram Panchayat being its Pradhan as the acquired land did not belong to the Gram Panchayat. The direction made to petitioner Parkash Chand cannot be separated from the rest of the award and cannot be held revisable as urged on his behalf. 7. In the result, the Revision petition is held not maintainable and is dismissed with costs. Revision petition dismissed.