JUDGMENT Mr. Rajiv Narain Raina, J (Oral):- It would have been a different matter, if the regular second appeal had been filed by the respondents, who were plaintiffs before the trial Court claiming more than 1/3rd share out of the share of Prikshit and upon his death by succession to his three brothers i.e Sispal, Jagdish and Jagmal in equal shares, Prikshit having died issueless, but this is not the case. There is no dispute with respect to 2/3rd share of the petitioners i.e Manoj and Suresh. In the regular second appeal filed by the petitioners, the claim is for the entire property and to exclude respondents no.5 to 10, the legal representatives of Jagmal. The said respondents have not questioned the decree of the Civil Court granting 1/3rd of the share of Prikshit to them and the judgment and decree is final as far as they are concerned. The issue whether the aforesaid respondents have no right claimed by them is to be gone into the appeal. But for the present, there is no dispute with respect to 2/3rd share in the claim for compensation for land acquired by the Government of Haryana. The compensation is lying deposited before the Reference Court since August 2007 and has not been disbursed to anyone so far. The request for release of 2/3rd of the compensation in favour of Manoj and Suresh has been declined by the learned Additional District Judge, Gurgaon by the order dated 12.06.2012 only for the reason that the regular second appeal is pending in this Court against the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge dated 05.05.1999 reversing the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court dated 24.02.1997, the learned Additional District Judge, Gurgaon appears not to have been acquainted with these facts when it declined the application and held that it was not possible to separate the share of the parties and order payment from the compensation for the reason that the regular second appeal is pending. Even, in the reply filed by the respondents no.5 to 10, 2/3rd share is not disputed as they have sought only 1/3rd share in the disputed property. 2. Even, in the reply filed by the respondents no.5 to 10, 2/3rd share is not disputed as they have sought only 1/3rd share in the disputed property. 2. In the aforesaid circumstances, the petition filed under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 could not have been declined to the extent of 2/3rd share which is due and payable to the petitioners together with the proforma respondents no.11 and 12. 3. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties including Mr. Kawatra, DAG for the State of Haryana, this Court is satisfied that the impugned order dated 12.06.2012, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Gurgaon suffers from an error of fact which if corrected would alter the decision in favour of the petitioners. 4. Consequently, this petition is allowed and the order dated 12.06.2012, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Gurgaon being the Reference Court is set aside and the Court below is directed to disburse 2/3rd of the amount lying with the Reference Court to the petitioners and proforma respondents no.11 and 12 after verifying the identity of the claimants, and to release 2/3rd of the amount of compensation to them. The Reference Court would now proceed to decide the main case on merits. 5. The petition stands disposed of but would remain subject to final decision in RSA No. 2906 of 1999, titled Jagdish and others v. Ram Singh. ---------0.B.S.0------------ ----------------