JUDGMENT Vijender Jain, C.J.:-This Regular First Appeal has been directed against judgment dated 10.4.1997 passed by the District Judge, Hisar in a reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act’) whereby respondent nos. 3 to 13, being tenants, were held entitled to receive 3/4th share of the compensation awarded in respect of the acquired land, which was owned by the appellants. On 28.7.2006, it was ordered to be heard along with L.P.A.No.38 of2006. 2. Vide notification dated 18.5.1993 issued under Section 6 of the Act, some land situated in the revenue estate of village Saatrod, District Hisar was acquired by the Government of Haryana. This included the land owned by the appellants upon which respondent nos; 3 to 13 were tenants. After announcement of the award, respondent nos. 3 to 13 filed a reference petition under Section 30 I of the Act claiming apportionment of the compensation in accordance with law. 4. Prior to that, in a separate forum, the appellants had filed an application on 29.5.1992 under Sections 9(i)(ii) and 14-A(i) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act,1953 (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the 1953 Act’) for ejectment of respondent nos. 3 to 13 on the ground that rent for the crops from Rabi,1987 to Rabi,1992 was not paid by the tenants. The said application was accepted by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Hisar vide his order dated 22.2.1993 and respondent nos. 3 to 13 were ordered to be ejected from the land in question. The appeals revision petition filed by both the parties were disposed of by various revenue authorities. Ultimately, respondent nos. 3 to 13 filed C.W.P.No.10982 of J999 which was allowed by the learned Single Judge and their ejectment was set aside and they were held to be tenants under the appellants. 5. Against the judgment of the learned Single Judge, the appellants preferred L.P.A.No.38 of 2006 which we have accepted today by a separate order. 6. As a consequence of the judgment passed in the aforesaid L.P.A., respondent nos. 3 to 13 stood evicted from the land in question with effect from 22.2.1993 when the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Hisar had accepted the application of the appellants. In this view of the matter, respondent nos. 3 to 13 were not the tenants under the appellants on the land in question when it was acquired, i.e., in the month ofMay,1993. 3 to 13 stood evicted from the land in question with effect from 22.2.1993 when the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Hisar had accepted the application of the appellants. In this view of the matter, respondent nos. 3 to 13 were not the tenants under the appellants on the land in question when it was acquired, i.e., in the month ofMay,1993. 7. The finding of the District Judge, Risar .recorded in the impugned award that on the date of the award by the Land Acquisition Collector, respondent nos. 3 to 13 were the tenants on the acquired land is erroneous because the Collector, Hisar Division had accepted their appeal in the proceedings under the 1953 Act subject to payment of the arrears of rent, which they did not deposit and the order of the Assistant Collector 1st Grade was never complied with in order to vest any right upon respondent nos. 3 to 13 and hence, they had no right to continue as such. 8. As a corollary to the above, this appeal is accepted and the impugned judgment is set aside holding that respondent nos. 3 to 13 are not entitled to any amount of compensation paid qua the land on which they, at one point of time, were tenants under the appellants. The judgment passed in L.P.A.No.38 of 2006 shall also be read as a part and parcel of this order as reasons for ejection of respondent nos. 3 to 13 (tenants) have been given therein. ————————