JUDGMENT R. L. Khurana, J. :- The appellant, hereinafter referred to as the claimant, has preferred the present appeal against the Judge, Una, passed in M Reference Case No. 79 of 1988, under sections 18/30, Land Acquisition m, 1894, hereinafter referred to as the Act. 2. Land measuring 16 marlas, out of land measuring 19 marlas. Comprising of old Khasra No. 1331, corresponding to new khasra No. 1618, as per jamabandi, for the year 1983-84, of village Kotla Kalan, came to be acquired pursuance to the notification dated 27.12.1985 (published on 15.2.1986) ed under Section 4 of the Act for a public purpose, namely, construction of Gauge Railway Line from Nangal Dam to Talwara. This land, as per revenue entries, was owned by the claimant and respondents No. 2 to 7 to extent of 1/2 share each and in possession of respondents No.2 to 7, as i-occupancy tenants. 3. The Collector, Land Acquisition, vide his award dated 15.1.1988, (warded compensation for the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 33,500 - per anal, besides other statutory benefits under the Act. The amount of compensation was apportioned between the claimant and the tenants in the ratio of 1:3. in other words, the claimant was allowed l/4th share in the total amount of compensation for the acquired land. 4. Feeling aggreied, the claimant approached the Collector, Land Acquisition, under Sections 18/30 of the Act for reference to the court for j [determination of die market value of the acquired land as well as for the determination of apportionment of the amount of compensation. The claimant claimed the market value of the land at Rs. 10,000/- per marla. He also claimed 1/2 share in the total amount of compensation. 5. Vide the impugned award the learned District Judge held that the market value of the acquired land was Rs. 33,500/- per kanal, as assessed by Collector. He further came to the conclusion that the amount of compensation stood rightly apportioned between the claimant and the respondents 2 to in the ratio of 1:3. 6. By way of the present appeal, the claimant has assailed the findings of the learned District Judge both, on the questions of assessment of market value as well as apportionment of amount of compensation. 7. 6. By way of the present appeal, the claimant has assailed the findings of the learned District Judge both, on the questions of assessment of market value as well as apportionment of amount of compensation. 7. It may be stated that insofar as the assessment of market value of the acquired land is concerned, no evidence was led on behalf of the claimant before the learned District Judge in respect of his claim that market value at the relevant time was Rs. 10,000/- permarla. In the absence of evidence coming" on record the learned District Judge has rightly held the market value of 1 land to be Rs. 33500/- per kanal as assessed by the Collector, Land Acquisition. 8. It is the admitted case of the parties that the claimant was the owner of the land in dispute to the extent of 1/2 share. The other half share was owned by Sansar Chand. The whole of the acquired land was in possession of one Ram Rakha, predecessorin -interest of respondents No.2 to 7 as a non - occupancy tenant. The said Ram Rakha purchased 1/2 share in the acquired land from the above said Sansar Chand. 9. The case of the claimant is mat one Ram Rakha, the predecessor-in-interest of respondents 2 to 7 having purchased 1/2 share in the acquired land, his status as tenant stood merged in the ownership rights and he or respondents 2 to 7 no more remained tenants in respect of the acquired land. 10. In Jyotish Thakur & Ors. v. TarakantJha & Ors. (AIR 1963 SC 605), the superior rights and interests of a landowner were acquired by a "raiyat". The question arose before the apex Court was whether on the acquisition of superior landlords interest by a "raiyat", his raiyat interest would cease to exist or would be continued to be a "raiyat" in addition to becoming a superior landlord ? It was held: "......the union of the superior and subordinate interests will not automatically cause a merger, merger will be held to have taken place if the intention to merge is clear and not otherwise. In the absence of any express indication of intention, the courts will proceed on the basis that the party had no intention to merge if it was to his interest not to merge and also if a duty lay on him to keep the interests separate. In the absence of any express indication of intention, the courts will proceed on the basis that the party had no intention to merge if it was to his interest not to merge and also if a duty lay on him to keep the interests separate. In deciding the intention of the party the court will have regard also to his conduct." 11. Following the ratio laid down by the apex court, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Takhat Singh v. Prem Chand & Anr. (AIR 1973 Punjab and Haryana 204), held that in the case where the interests of the lessee and the lessor in the whole of the property have not become vested at the same time under one person, there can be no merger of the lessees rights into the lessors right within the meaning of section 111 (d), Transfer of Property Act. 1882. It was further held that the primary consideration would be the intention of the lessee as to whether he intended to keep his tenancy rights alive when he acquired the ownership rights in the property. 12. Relying upon the above said ratio the learned District Judge has rightly held that the tenancy in favour of respondents 2 to 7 did not stand determined consequent upon respondent No. 2 having acquired ownership rights .qua half share in the acquired land. 13. A perusal of the jamabandi for the year 1983-84 and 1975-76 shows that annual rent of 10 paise in respect of acquired land was payable by respondents 2 to 7. The loss suffered by the claimant consequent upon the acquisition of land would be to that extent annually. Considering the same, the collector and the learned District Judge have rightly apportioned the compensation between the claimant and respondent 2 to 7 in the ratio of 1:3. The findings of the learned District Judge therefore do not warrant any interference in this appeal. 14. Resultantly, the present appeal fails and the same is dismissed accordingly. The parties are left to bear their owns costs. Appeal dismissed.