Judgment : L. Narasimha Reddy, J. An extent of Acs.10.00 of land in Survey No.214 of Easgaon Village, Kagaznagar, Adilabad District was notified for acquisition for the purpose of doubling the railway line by the South Central Railway. A notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short ‘the Act’) was published. The appellants and respondents 2 and 3 filed separate claims for compensation before the Land Acquisition Officer, the 1st respondent herein. An award was passed on 18.02.1990 fixing the market value. However, since there was no unanimity as to the entitlement to receive the compensation, the 1st respondent referred the matter to a civil Court under Section 30 of the Act. The Court of Subordinate Judge, Asifabad took up the reference as O.P.No.43 of 1991. While the appellants figured as claimants 5 to 14, respondents 2 and 3 figured as claimants 3 and 4 in the O.P. The case of the appellants was that the land was owned by respondent No.2 and he, in turn, sold the same in their favour under an agreement of sale, dated 15.02.1967 (Ex.B5) and possession was also delivered. It was also mentioned that when there was interference from respondent No.2 with their possession, they filed O.S.No.10 of 1984 in the Court of the District Munsif, Sirpur for the relief of declaration of title and injunction and that the said suit was decreed on 05.03.1994 (Ex.B3). They also pleaded that their possession over the property till it was acquired is evident by the pahani patrikas and other documents, Exs.B6 to B31. Respondent No.2 on the other hand, pleaded that he never sold the property to the appellants or to any other person and that he continued to be the owner of the property. He stated that he was issued pattadar pass books and title deeds in respect of the land and he alone is entitled to be paid the compensation. Respondent No.3 pleaded that he was the original owner of the property and he being a Tribal, the purchase of the land made by respondent No.2 from him is opposed to the provisions of the A.P. Scheduled Area Land Transfer Regulations (for short ‘the Regulations’) and that the compensation is to be paid to him. Through its order, dated 28.04.1995, the trial Court held that respondent No.2 alone is entitled to be paid the compensation. Through its order, dated 28.04.1995, the trial Court held that respondent No.2 alone is entitled to be paid the compensation. Hence, this appeal under Section 54 of the Act. Sri V.Ravi Kiran Rao, learned counsel for the appellants, submits that the 2nd respondent did not even submit his claim before respondent No.1 and still, he was shown as one of the claimants in the O.P. He contends that ever since 1967, the appellants are enjoying the property with full rights of ownership and the doubt, if any, in this regard stood removed with the decree passed by the District Munsif, Sirpur in O.S.No.10 of 1984. He submits that the view taken by the trial Court cannot be sustained in law. Respondent No.2 died during the pendency of the appeal. His legal representatives were brought on record. However, Sri Raghuveer Reddy, learned counsel for the deceased- respondent No.2, submits that he did not receive any instructions from the legal representatives. Sri Y.Rama Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.3, on the other hand, submits that the transfer of any item of immovable property situated in a scheduled area is prohibited under the Regulations and undisputedly, respondent No.3, a tribal, was the owner of the property. He contends that the sale said to have taken place in favour of respondent No.2 is void ab initio and the compensation ought to have been paid to respondent No.3. There was almost a triangular contest before the trial Court in the context of receiving the compensation for the acquired land. The trial Court framed only one point for its consideration, namely “Who among the claimants are entitled to be paid the compensation?” The oral evidence adduced before the trial Court comprised of the depositions of R.Ws.1 to 6, representing different claimants. The documentary evidence comprised of Exs.B1 to B60. Obviously, because it is a reference under Section 30 of the Act, no evidence whatever was adduced by respondent No.1. The points that arise for consideration before us are: (a) whether the transfer of the land from respondent No.3 to respondent No.2 is valid in law? (b) whether the appellants derive any right or title from respondent No.2? Point Nos.1 and 2: The evidence on record discloses that respondent No.3, a Tribal, was the original owner of the land. The points that arise for consideration before us are: (a) whether the transfer of the land from respondent No.3 to respondent No.2 is valid in law? (b) whether the appellants derive any right or title from respondent No.2? Point Nos.1 and 2: The evidence on record discloses that respondent No.3, a Tribal, was the original owner of the land. There is lack of clarity as to the manner in which the title has passed from respondent No.3 to respondent No.2. Since the land is located in a scheduled area, the transfer thereof from respondent No.3 to respondent No.2 was hit by the provisions of the Regulations. That, however, was not seriously taken into account by the trial Court. The record discloses that respondent No.2 was issued pattadar pass books and title deeds (Ex.B32) for the land and he was recognized as absolute owner. The trial Court was also satisfied that whether one goes by the revenue records or other facts pertaining to ownership, respondent No.2 can be recognized as owner. In case, respondent No.2 continued to be the owner and was in possession of the property till the date of acquisition, there would have been some scope for upholding the findings recorded by the trial Court. It is not in dispute that ever since 1967, the appellants are in possession of the property. Though it was not an absolute sale under Ex.B5, they gained possession over the land through it. It is also evident from the decree, Ex.B3. Some comments are made vis-à-vis the decree, Ex.B3, to the effect that the title could not have been declared for the property on the basis of an agreement of sale and that it has been procured fraudulently. Even if that is true, at least, when he came to know about it, respondent No.2 ought to have taken steps to get it set aside or nullified. No such steps were taken and Ex.B3 still remains unassailed.This Court finds itself in a typical situation where the land held by a tribal was transferred in contravention of the provisions of the Regulations and the transferee, in turn, had parted with the possession in favour of a third party, whose rights were declared by a Court of law. In this complex situation, it would be difficult to hold that anyone of them is entitled to be paid the entire compensation. In this complex situation, it would be difficult to hold that anyone of them is entitled to be paid the entire compensation. Instances are not lacking where the law itself recognizes the entitlement of a person to receive a portion of compensation on account of his being in possession as tenant etc; in the event of it being acquired. We propose to strike a balance in this scenario. Till the date of acquisition, respondent No.3 did not put forward any claim. All the same, his rights conferred under the Regulations cannot be ignored. Similarly, respondent No.2, who was recognized to be the owner, did not have the benefit of possession. So far as the appellants are concerned, except that they obtained a decree, which may not fit into the settled principles of law, they did not make any effort to get the relief of specific performance of the agreement of sale.We therefore, direct that the legal representatives of respondent No.2 shall be entitled to be paid the compensation to the extent of 40%, and the appellants on the one hand and the legal representatives of respondent No.3 on the other, to the extent of 30% each. The appeal is accordingly partly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. The miscellaneous petitions filed in this appeal shall also stand disposed of.