Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 28 (PNJ)

Municipal Committee, Sirsa v. Hazara Ram

2001-01-05

M.L.SINGHAL

body2001
JUDGMENT M.L. Singhal, J. - Vide Order dated 16.3.1995, Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil) with the powers of Land Acquisition Officer, Siras held Hazara Ram and Ram Chand entitled to 1/4th share of the amount of compensation. 2. Vide Order dated 10.11.1995, Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil) with the powers of Land Acquisition Officer, Sirsa ordered the dismissal of the application of Municipal Committee for revoking the attachment and Committee has assailed order dated 16.3.1995 and also the Order dated 10.11.1995. 3. No fault can be found with these orders as through application, Hazara Ram and Ram Chand claimed the recovery of the amount which had been ordered as a result of apportionment between them and the land owner vide order of the Land Acquisition Collector dated 12.4.1989 land measuring 49 acres, 1 Kanal 15 Marlas was acquired for the setting up of an auto vehicles and commercial market at Sirsa by Municipal Committee, Sirsa. Out of this land, 47 acres of land was owned by the Punjab Wakf Board and the remaining land was owned by the private owners. Land acquisition collector gave award. He awarded Rs. 25,000/- per acre for chahi and gair mumkin land and Rs. 20,000/- per acre for Nehri land. No compensation was awarded to the lessees. 4. At the instance of private owners and the Punjab Wakf Board, and lessees (not Hazara Ram etc. respondents) compensation was enhanced by the learned District Judge on reference under Section 18 of the Act. Further enhancement was made on their appeals by the High Court. These lessees, however, did not go in for reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act to the District Judge nor did they go to the High Court. High Court vide Judgment dated 2.6.1988 enhanced some compensation and allowed the appellants/lessees to share the amount of compensation to the extent of 1/4th with the Punjab Wakf Board, owner. Vide Order dated 2.8.1993, L.P.A. Bench allowed some enhancement. It was held that Chamba Ram and Mangat Ram would be entitled to 1/4th in respect of the land held by them as lessees, as these lessees had filed reference, first appeal and LPA. Hazara Ram and Ram Chand never joined them. Vide Order dated 2.8.1993, L.P.A. Bench allowed some enhancement. It was held that Chamba Ram and Mangat Ram would be entitled to 1/4th in respect of the land held by them as lessees, as these lessees had filed reference, first appeal and LPA. Hazara Ram and Ram Chand never joined them. On 29.8.1988, Hazara Ram and Ram Chand filed affidavit to the S.D.O., Civil with the powers of Land Acquisition Officer, Sirsa, with the powers of Land Acquisition Officer, Sirsa, under Section 28-A of the Act, saying that, they may be given the share in the amount of compensation in accordance with the decision of the High Court dated 2.6.1988. In that application, they stated that they were lessees on part of the acquired land and they had not filed any reference and the High Court had decided that the lessees are entitled to 1/4th, therefore, they may be awarded the amount of compensation. Land Acquisition Collector, vide Order dated 12.4.1989 sine die adjourned the application filed by Hazara Ram and Ram Chand under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act on account of pendency of LPA before the High Court. 5. Hazara Ram and Ram Chand were entitled to compensation as they were lessees of the Punjab Wakf Board on the analogy that Mangat Ram and Chamba Ram were entitled to compensation being the lessees of the land owner. In Mangat Ram etc. v. State of Haryana and others etc., 1996 PLJ 401, Honble Supreme Court ordered the apportionment of compensation between tenant the landlord in the ratio of 3:1. Mangat Ram etc., were holding part of the land measuring 49 acres, 1 Kanal 15 Marlas as lessees. Hazara Ram and Ram Chand are entitled to the same treatment which Mangat Ram etc. got in the matter of apportionment of compensation between them and the land owner. In Anil Kumar and others v. Haryana State through the Executive Engineer, SYL, Division Kurukshetra, 1994-1 PLR 406, the learned single Judge of this Court held that other land owners who did not seek reference under Section 18, on re-determination, are entitled to the same rate which other land owners got either from the Court of District Judge or from the High Court or from the Supreme Court of India. For the reasons given above, this revision fails and is dismissed. Revision dismissed.