JUDGMENT Arun Kumar Goel, J. (Oral) :- This appeal is directed against the Award dated 11.1.1991, passed by District Judge (Forests), Shimla, in land reference No. 20-S/4 of 1988. By means of impugned award reference under Sections 18 and 30 was disposed of. Claim made on behalf of Surat Ram (since deceased through his legal representatives), as well as Mohan Lai and Mast Ram, under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act has been answered. Thus holding them to be exclusively entitled for the payment of compensation qua the land which was subject matter of acquisition Appellants No. 1 and 2 were respondents in the said reference. Similarly appellant No. 3 to 7 were also the respondents therein. 2. Land measuring 24-(1) Bighas was intended to be acquired for a public purpose namely, for establishing Agro Industrial Packaging India Ltd. This Company is established with a view to manufacture integrated Carton boxes. For construction of its building and erecting its plant at Chok Khoru, Tehsil Kotkhai, (Pragti Nagar) District Shimla, this land was to be acquired. 3. Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), was published on 24.10.1987. This was followed by provisions under Section 17 of the Act. Land Acquisition Collector, then after following the procedure prescribed under law announced his award on 30.6.1988. A total sum of Rs. 3, 91,550/- was awarded as compensation. Since dispute had been raised by the parties before him regarding its apportionment, therefore he did not apportion the same, in favour of the persons as per entries in the revenue record. Reference in this background was made by the Collector to the court below. 4. Respondents No. 1 to 3 pleaded, that all the parties to this reference/their predecessors owned land in three Chaks namely, Kuffar, Khoru and Guma. 30 years before 1988, all the owners had partitioned the land in all the three chaks. Since then they (respondent No. 1 to 3) were in continuous and separate ownership, as well as possession of the land under acquisition. In this behalf, it may also be noted that a plea in paragraph 2 of the reference petition has also been raised by respondent No. 1 to 3. It was that prior to private/oral partition, parties were members of Joint Hindu Family. This status was disrupted after partition as aforesaid. In this behalf, it may also be noted that a plea in paragraph 2 of the reference petition has also been raised by respondent No. 1 to 3. It was that prior to private/oral partition, parties were members of Joint Hindu Family. This status was disrupted after partition as aforesaid. Also so far as land in Chak Khoru is concerned, there were two types of land. One was ownership land and the other was tenancy land under the State of Himachal Pradesh. Further case of these respondents was that as per the aforesaid private/oral partition, land measuring 8-10 bighas was allotted to them, appellants and Kewal Ram respondent No. 4 got 5-11 bighas, respondents No. 5 to 8 got 8-9 bighas, whereas appellants No. 3 to 7 got nothing. In this background, it was pleaded by them that the compensation needs to be apportioned on the basis of this private/oral partition, and not as per entries in the revenue record which does not depict- true and correct factual position. 5. These pleas were contested and resisted on behalf of present, appellants. According to them plea of the parties being member of Joint Hindu Family and/or their being any private/oral partition so far land under acquisition was concerned, is not correct. According to them revenue entries deficit true and correct position and the averments to the contrary are factually incorrect. Thus they prayed for apportion the assessed compensation as per these entries. 6. Admittedly there is no document placed on record by respondent No. 1 to 3 so as to confirm/reaffirm the factum of, family oral partition. No doubt, they have produced oral evidence by examining PW-1 and PW-3, besides one of them i.e. Surat Ram appearing as a witness PW-2 to support their case. In addition to this, documents Ex. PA to Ex. PE are also placed on record. Similarly, on the other hand, respondents Sohan Lai and Lachman had appeared as RW-1 and RW-2. They have also besides placed on record documentary evidence. 7. Mr. Gupta, learned senior Counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that so called oral/family partition is a plea qua the land under acquisition has been raised, simply to be rejected. As according to him it is without any convincing and legally acceptable evidence on record. They have also besides placed on record documentary evidence. 7. Mr. Gupta, learned senior Counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that so called oral/family partition is a plea qua the land under acquisition has been raised, simply to be rejected. As according to him it is without any convincing and legally acceptable evidence on record. Further according to him presumption of correctness attached to the entries in Jamabandies, and the other revenue record having been prepared in the discharge of officials duty supports the case of his clients. As such presumption having not been controverted on behalf of the respondent No. 1 to 3, this appeal deserves to be allowed per him. In addition to this, he also submitted that the entire evidence produced by the parties, both oral and documentary, when read together clearly negatives the claim of respondents No. 1 to 3. 8. All these pleas have been contested and resisted by Mr. Ronta, learned Counsel appearing,for them. By laying great emphasis on the statements of PWs 1 to 3, as well as of RWs 1 and 2, coupled with Ex. PA to Ex. PE, he submitted that reference has been rightly answered and compensation awarded to his clients exclusively needs to be upheld. He further submitted that there is no reason to accept the plea of the appellants who admitted partition of joint land in Ghaks Kuffar and Gum. According to him no case is made out by the appellants to hold that there was partial partition between parties leaving Khoru land to be j6int. According to him respondents are trying to take undue advantage of the wrong and incorrect entries which are contrary to the ground reality because of aforesaid private/oral partition. 9. Before dealing with the respective contentions urged on behalf of the parties, it may be noted that out of the total land under acquisition measuring of 24-1 bighas, area of 3-19 bighas was admittedly the tenancy land, (though Mr. Ronta submitted that in family/oral partition the entire tenancy land also fell to the share of his clients to the exclusion of all other parties to this appeal). Mutation in respect of this land under H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act was attested in favour of the tenants as per entries in the revenue record. Copy of this mutation is Ex. RX. Mutation in respect of this land under H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act was attested in favour of the tenants as per entries in the revenue record. Copy of this mutation is Ex. RX. Vide this, mutation of the entire tenancy land measuring 9-14 bighas was attested. But by appellate order of the Collector, Sub Division Theog, District Shimla, in case No. 7-VIII/1988, (in the appeal at the instance of respondents No. 1 to 3 and another person), this was-set aside. Copy of this order is Ext. PC. Admittedly after passing of Ext. PC, no mutation of ownership was sanctioned as per provisions of H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 as amended from time to time in favour of any of the parties to this appeal. Out of this land, 3-19 bighas comprised in Khasra Nos. 137 and 143 is the subject-matter of the acquisition. 10. PW1 stated that he is seeing the land in Khoru Chak being in ownership of Mohan Lai, Surat Ram and Shyam Lal who are in its possession on the basis of the partition. He further stated that Sohan Lai was never in its possession. Per this witness, he knows the parties, who are living separately for the last many years on the basis of the partition and the land of Khoru Chak had been acquired by the Government for carton factory. This witness further admitted that he had not seen the revenue record but denied the suggestion on behalf of the appellants that no partition had taken place amongst the parties. In the revenue record he admitted that the property is shown to be in joint possession, but their possessions are separate. Fact of Sohan Lal and other appellants, cultivating the land was denied by him. He however admitted in his cross-examination that no private partition took place in his presence and no paper was prepared to that effect. 11. PW-3 in Ramesh Kumar. He has also reaffirmed the fact of partition of land in question amongst the co-owners and they being in exclusive recorded possessions, after it, (the partition). In his cross-examination he admitted that he is. a resident of Kotkhai, and has been the land in dispute for the last four years. According to him at present (on the date when he made the statement), it was lying fallow. Regarding land of Surat Ram, Bathu was sown in it. In his cross-examination he admitted that he is. a resident of Kotkhai, and has been the land in dispute for the last four years. According to him at present (on the date when he made the statement), it was lying fallow. Regarding land of Surat Ram, Bathu was sown in it. Witness further stated that he cultivates the land at Guma which is in his possession for the last six years. He has planted an orchard there and maize is also sown. While supporting the case of respondents No. 1 to 3, this witness has denied that he had not seen the land in dispute. At the same time, he admitted that he has some dispute relating to path with Sohan Lal appellant. But in the next breath he stated that this dispute is between the public. He also admitted that son of Surat Ram respondent No. 1, is an electrical contractor and he (this witness), is doing business in partnership with him. He also admitted having cordial relations and visiting the house of Surat Ram. 12. PW-2 Surat Ram (respondent No. 1); stated that partition between him and Surat Ram etc. took place, since the time of their predecessors in the year 1954. According to him mutation of such partition was entered. Regarding Chak Khoru and Kuffar, he has placed on record copies of mutations Ex. PA and PB. He further stated that regarding tenancy- land mutation was not attested because of non-conferment of proprietary rights. However, exclusive possession has been shown as per family/oral partition. Mutation regarding teach land having been attested-as per revenue entries in the absence of the witness was challenged by him. In appeal vide order Ex. PC this mutation was set aside, and case was remanded back. He also placed on record copies of jamabandi Ex. Pa and PE for the year 1986-87 of tenancy and ownership of land. According to him tenancy land had fallen to the share of all three i.e. respondents No. 1 to 3 which they have further divided amongst themselves. In cross-examination he admitted that no document was prepared at the time of partition. He admitted that regarding Guma chak, appellants had initiated proceedings for partition but it was prior to 1954. He denied the suggestion on behalf of the appellants that they (the appellants) are in possession of the land under acquisition. In cross-examination he admitted that no document was prepared at the time of partition. He admitted that regarding Guma chak, appellants had initiated proceedings for partition but it was prior to 1954. He denied the suggestion on behalf of the appellants that they (the appellants) are in possession of the land under acquisition. He further denied the suggestion that the revenue entries are correct. 13. On the other hand, Sohan Lai appellant appeared as RW-1. He has supported his case so far land under acquisition is concerned. Per him, it continues to be joint and there was no private/oral partition qua it. He has further gone on record to state that revenue record depicts the true and correct position. And the claim to the contrary of its having been partitioned by oral/private partition was not correct. In cross-examination he denied the suggestion made on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 3, that there was any partition as claimed, qua Khoru Chak. Rather he stated that Surat Ram respondent was earlier a Patwari having since retired. While posted as such at Fagu, they had in a clandestine manner excluded their (appellants) possession in respect of the acquired land in connivance with the revenue officials. He reiterated that he continued to be in possession and entries in respect of exclusive possession were incorrect. He however admitted that qua Guma and Kuffar Chak, land having been partitioned with was earlier joint. He could not give any reason why partition of acquired land situate at Chak Khoru was not affected. In his further cross-examination he denied the case as set up by the respondents No. 1 to 3. 14. RW-2 is Lachman appellant No. 4 in this appeal. He stated that their land was in Guma, Khoru and Kuffar. He was a co-sharer in the acquired land but was not aware about the extent of his share. According to him he was in joint possession of the acquired land with other co-owners. As per entries in the revenue record, tie had been in possession of land measuring 20-2 bighas which was acquired for the factory in question. He was not shown in possession of this land. He further stated that he is entitled to the compensation to the extent of his share. As per entries in the revenue record, tie had been in possession of land measuring 20-2 bighas which was acquired for the factory in question. He was not shown in possession of this land. He further stated that he is entitled to the compensation to the extent of his share. When cross-examination he stated that he does not remember when the partition had taken place and since the partition they were living separately. He denied the suggestion on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 3 that he had not been in joint possession over this piece of land. In the next breath he stated that acquired land was in joint possession of the parties. According to him they were also in joint possession of tenancy land in chak khpru. They had been cultivating the said tenancy land till it was acquired. This joint land was in pieces, but the witness was not in a position to give khasra numbers of the portion that was in his possession. Nor he could tell the area which was in his possession. He denied the suggestion of respondents No. 1 to 3, that he had never, been in possession of the acquired land. He further denied that either he or Jagat Ram Laiq Ram, Mahi Ram and Dila Ram had given up their shares in the acquired land in favour of respondents No. 1 (to 3. He also denied the suggestion that the respondents No. 1 to 3, had given up their land in Chak Kuffar in lieu of the land in Khoru which had fallen exclusively to respondents No. 1 to 3 share. 15. Now coming to the documentary evidence produced by the parties in this case. Ex. PA is the copy of mutation. Though the mutation order part is in Hindi, but the entries on its reverse are in Urdu. These entries were got read from an Urdu knowing Advocate in Court, during the course of hearing in the presence of learned Counsel for the parties. This pertains to Chak Khoru. Land measuring 5-11 bighas out of the total land stood transferred in favour of Surat Ram, Mast Ram and Mohan Lai sons of Bali Ram in equal share 2/3 share, and Chala son of Shama 1/3th share out of 1/4th. This pertains to Chak Khoru. Land measuring 5-11 bighas out of the total land stood transferred in favour of Surat Ram, Mast Ram and Mohan Lai sons of Bali Ram in equal share 2/3 share, and Chala son of Shama 1/3th share out of 1/4th. Regarding rest of the land entry in the revenue record, when translated into English, reads so far 3/4 share is concerned entries were kept intact as per jamabandi. Area of 5-11 Bigha was worked out, while calculating Hissa Muntkila out of this area as per Jamabandi. 16. So far as Ex. PB is concerned, this mutation relates to Chak Kuffar. Total Kitas are 52 and the area was 114-11 bighas. Again according to this mutation, Surat Ram and others as well as Chala, owners had exchanged their shares with that of.Bhagat Ram and Lachman. it is further mentioned in this mutation that Bhagat Ram and Lachman had given up their shares in favour of Surat Ram, Chala and others. Ex. PC relates to transfer of ownership in favour of Himachal Government on the basis of acquisition of a part of the tenancy land. So far as Ex. PD is concerned, it is a copy of jamabandi for the years 1986-87. This is prior to passing of Ex. PC. This pertaining to the entire tenancy land Kitas 7, measuring 9-14 bighas. A reference to the column of cultivation in this jamabandi clearly shows the separate possession of Sarat Ram, Mast Ram and Mohan Lal are recorded qua the land comprised in Khatauni Nos. 20, 21 and 22 is concerned. However, that land covering Khatauni No. 23 is shown to be in possession of all three of them in equal shares. Fact remains that possession in all the four khataunis of this jamabandi is recorded as Hissadari (co-sharer). Similarly in Ex. PE, in the column of ownership parties to this case ace admittedly shown as such. But in the possession column, some of them are shown in different Khataunis from 16 to 19. Again the fact remains, that possession is shown to be Hissadari (i.e. as co-sharer). This is the documentary evidence produced by the respondents No. 1 to 3. 17. On the other hand appellants have placed on record copies of Jamabandi is, for the year 1957-58 Ex. BA, for the years 1961-62, Ex. PB an Ex. PC for the years 1965-66. Again the fact remains, that possession is shown to be Hissadari (i.e. as co-sharer). This is the documentary evidence produced by the respondents No. 1 to 3. 17. On the other hand appellants have placed on record copies of Jamabandi is, for the year 1957-58 Ex. BA, for the years 1961-62, Ex. PB an Ex. PC for the years 1965-66. These pertains to tenancy land. It appears that again in all the three Jamabandis, possession is shown to be Hissadari (as co-sharer) though exclusive. 18. With a view to establish their plea of being in possession of the acquired land on the basis of oral private family partition, respondents No. 1 to 3 were required to establish this fact by leading cogent, trustworthy and reliable evidence. So far Ex. PA and Ex. PB are concerned, they deal with exchange of lands in Chak Khoru and Kuffar. In Chak Khoru only 1/4th of the total holding i.e. 5-1 bighas was exchanged between the parties as noted hereinabove. Regarding rest of the 3/4th share out of the total land, entries of ownership of possession were kept intact. And in any case the share of appellants on the basis of this document cannot be said to have in any manner having been effected. 19. Faced with this situation, learned Counsel for respondents No. 1 to 3 submitted, that even then on the face of the statements of PWs 1 to 3 as well as partition having taken place regarding other two chak, having been admitted by RWs 1 and 2, there is no reason for this Court to take a contrary view from the one taken by the learned court below. This plea cannot be accepted. Presumption of truth attached to the Jamabandi entries need to be rebutted as per provisions of H.P. Land Revenue Act, by cogent and legally acceptable evidence. Statement of PW-2 is a self serving statement. PW-1 has not seen any document of partition and was also not aware what is the position regarding revenue entries. So far PW-3 is concerned he has an extent to grind against appellant No. 1. Reason being of his having admitted some litigation regarding path, though he hastened to say in the next breach that it is a dispute of public. So far PW-3 is concerned he has an extent to grind against appellant No. 1. Reason being of his having admitted some litigation regarding path, though he hastened to say in the next breach that it is a dispute of public. In addition to this, he is in partnership with the son of respondent No. 1 Surat Ram in the business of electrical contractor ship and is on daily visiting terms with respondents No. 1 to 3. Once this conclusion is arrived at, then in my considered view presumption attached to the Jamabandies and to other entries in revenue record is not rebutted. Thus the plea of private oral partition set up by the respondents qua the land under acquisition is hereby rejected. 20. This is the position qua the ownership land situate in Chak Khoru. 21. Now coming to the tenancy land situate in this village. Admittedly after passing of Ex. PC and after having held herein above that there was no oral private partition qua the land in Chak Khoru. Vide Ex. PC parties were related to the position, i.e. that no ownership was conferred upon them. Once this conclusion is arrived at, then the relationship of landlord and tenant stood revived. What falls from this is that parties to this-case would be entitled to get the amount of compensation qua 3-13 bighas of land out of total 24-1 bighas acquired land, in the ratio of 1/4-will go to the owner/State, and 3/4th of the compensation will be shared by the respondents as per entries in the revenue records. 22. No other point is urged. 23. In view of the aforesaid discussion this appeal is allowed in the following terms : (a) that the award passed- by the learned District Judge (Forests), Shimla in case No. 20-S/4 of 1988, dated 11.10.1991, in case titled as Surat Ram and others v. Sohan Lai and others, is hereby quashed and set aside; (b) parties will be entitled to share the amount of compensation as per entries in the Jamabandi as those existed on the date of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. They shall also be entitled to interest (if not already awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector), not only on compensation, but also on solatium as well, in view of the recent constitution bench decision of Supreme Court in Sunder v. Union of India, 2001(7) SCC 211; (c) so far tendency land measuring 3-19 bighas comprised in Khasra Nos. 137 and 143 is concerned, the compensation shall be payable 1/4th to the owner i.e. State of HP. and 3/4th will be paid to all the parties as per the Jamabandi entries order in case of (b) above; and (d) parties are left to share their own costs.