JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Heard Mr. K. N. Bhattacharji, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Kohinoor N. Bhattacharji, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. S. K. Deb, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. R. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. This is an appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 from the judgment dated 10.06.2015, delivered in Misc. (L. A) 127 of 2012, by the Land Acquisition Judge, now Gomati District, Udaipur. 3. The genesis of the dispute as located in the appeal is that the land measuring 0.60 acres pertaining to Khatian No. 370 and 394/1, plots No. 1820/p and 1816 was acquired. 0.32 acres of land was acquired from the land as entered in Khatian No. 370 and 0.28 acres was acquired from the land as entered in Khatian No. 394/1. There was a dispute in respect of the title embracing apportionment of the award between the interested persons namely Smt. Santa Roy (Choudhury), Sri Manoj Kanti Roy and others. 4. The Land Acquisition Collector referred the dispute under Section 30 of the L. A. Act being Misc. L.A. No. 127 of 2012. One Smt. Jaysree Dey (Roy) claimed 1/3rd of the award by filing the written statement. The other interested persons had also filed their written statement of claim. After recording the evidence, the Land Acquisition Judge, Gomati District, Udiapur has observed as under: “On analysis of the evidence it is found that on apportionment, the share of Santa Roy Chowdhury, first party will go up to 0.17 satak of land under Khatian No. 370, plot No. 1820/p and 25.5 sttak under Khatian No. 394/1, plot No. 1816. So, she is treated as person interested on the above portion of land at best. The share of other O.P. is to be determined on the basis of sale deed executed by the legal heirs of Monoj Kanti Roy, Mrinal Kanti Roy and Shisir Kanti Roy. On scrutiny of the sale deeds it is found that the legal heirs of Monoj Kanti Roy and Mrinal Kanti Roy sold out part of the land under Khatian No. 370, plot No. 1820/p. So, they will get the rest compensation. As per apportionment, first party Santa Roy Chowdhury will get compensation amount for the land measuring 0.17 statk and 25.5 statk of land only. As per apportionment, first party Santa Roy Chowdhury will get compensation amount for the land measuring 0.17 statk and 25.5 statk of land only. The apportionment is done only on the land measuring 0.17 satak under Khatian No. 370, plot No. 1820/p and 25.5 satak under Khatian No. 394/1, plot No. 1816. So, the amount of compensation is to be given to Santa Roy Chowdhury on that land only. Therefore, the petition for apportionment is maintainable. The prayer for apportionment as claimed by the claimant petitioner is decided partly. The petitioner is entitled to get the apportionment only for the land measuring. 0.17 satak and 25.5 satak. She is not entitled to get any other relief. Both, the issues are decided accordingly. In view of my above findings over the 3 issues, this reference petition filed under Section 30 of the L. A. Act for apportionment of the amount of the compensation is allowed partly. The petitioner, Smti. Santa Roy Chowdhury is entitled to get the apportionment only for the land measuring 0.17 satak and 25.5 satak but she is not entitled to get any other relief.” [Emphasis added] 5. Questioning that judgment dated 10.06.2015 delivered in Misc. L.A. 127 of 2012, this appeal has been filed by Smti. Jaysree Dey (Roy) against the respondents claiming that the appellant and the respondent No. 1 are entitled to 1/3rd share of the awarded compensation against the acquired land, pertaining to Khatian No. 394/1, 370 and 1/6th share in Khatian No. 395. During pendency of the appeal, the parties have struck a settlement outside the Court and the memorandum of the settlement has been filed duly signed by all the interested persons embodying the terms in the interlocutory application being I.A. No. 289 of 2017. The terms as arrived by way of that settlement are as under: “(I) That each of the applicants shall be entitled to receive compensation in equal share of the amount of compensation as awarded by the L.A. Collector, Gomati District at Udaipur in Misc (LA) No. 127 of 2012. The terms as arrived by way of that settlement are as under: “(I) That each of the applicants shall be entitled to receive compensation in equal share of the amount of compensation as awarded by the L.A. Collector, Gomati District at Udaipur in Misc (LA) No. 127 of 2012. (II) Each of the applicants individually and/or collectively shall have the right to seek reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and in the event there is any enhancement or determination of any further compensation for the acquisition of land, each of the applicants herein shall be entitled to receive the additional compensation in equal shares. (III) The parties to the present proceeding shall bear their respective costs. (IV) This petition shall form a part of the decree.” 6. The terms of settlement has been approved and signed by one Guru Prasad Roy, the constituted attorney of Smt. Santa Roy (Chowdhury) for her behalf. The land originally belonged to Monoj Kanti Roy, since deceased, Mrinal Kanti Roy since deceased and Sisir Roy. The entire land was sold out by those owners to Smti. Jaysree Dey (Roy), Smti. Santa Roy (Chowdhury) and Smt.Anurani Deb Roy in different proportions. 7. The said land as stated was acquired. As the dispute arose in respect of apportionment of the compensation, the dispute was referred under Section 30 of the L.A. Act and the Land Acquisition Judge, Gomati District, Udaipur by the judgment dated 10.06.2015 allowed the reference partly granting Smti. Santa Roy (Chowdhury) to get the apportionment only for the land measuring 0.17 acre and 0.255 acre as stated. This appeal is directed against the said judgment. Now, by this settlement, the parties have joined to mitigate the dispute striking the settlement as enumerated hereinabove. 8. This Court has scrutinized the terms of the settlement and finds that there is no legal impediment in accepting the terms of settlement and as such the memorandum of settlement is accepted and the present appeal is disposed of in terms of the said settlement. The petition being I.A. No. 289 of 2017 containing the terms of the settlement shall form the part of the decree. Accordingly, this appeal is disposed of on compromise. Draw the decree accordingly.