Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 2722 (PNJ)

Raj Kamal Prakashan (P) Ltd. v. Ramadhar

2006-07-12

VINEY MITTAL

body2006
JUDGMENT Viney Mittal, J. (Oral) - The Company M/s Raj Kamal Prakashan Private Ltd. is in appeal against the award dated February 4, 1980 passed by the learned Additional District Sessions Judge, Gurgaon deciding a reference petition under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1890 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 2. Vide a notification dated March 24, 1971, published on March 30, 1971 issued under Section 4 of the Act, the land comprised in khasra Nos. 2077/192/2, 194/2, 197/1 and 197/2 was notified for acquisition. 3. During the assessment of compensation proceedings, Ramadhar-respondent No. 1, who at that point of time was Director of the Company M/s Raj Kamal Prakashan Private Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the appellant-Company) claimed that he was a perpetual lessee of the land and as such claimed absolute ownership of the said land. However, the appellant-Company claimed that it had purchased the acquired land through three sale deeds dated January 21, 1967 (Exhibit A1 to Exhibit P-4). The aforesaid sale deeds were executed on behalf of the Company by Ramadhar, the then Director. On the basis of the aforesaid sale deeds, the Company claimed that it was entitled to the entire compensation. In view of the aforesaid claim made by the appellant-Company and Ramadhar, the matter was referred for adjudication under Section 30 of the Act. 4. The Reference Court came to the conclusion, on the basis of the evidence led by the appellant-Company, that the appellant-Company was the absolute owner of the acquired land. It was also held that Ramadhar was having no individual interest as lessee in the said land. However, the Reference Court further held that Ramadhar would be entitled to get Rs. 20,000/- out of the compensation awarded for the acquisition on account of the fact that he had registered lease exhibit R-7 in his favour qua the acquired land and the aforesaid lease hold has been acquired by Ramadhar on a consideration of Rs. 20,000/-. 5. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant-Company challenging the awarding of Rs. 20,000/- as compensation to Ramadhar. 6. No one has chosen to appear on behalf of respondent No. 1 despite service. 7. I have heard Sh. M.L. Sarin, learned counsel for the appellant-Company and with his assistance have gone through the record of the case. 8. Sh. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant-Company challenging the awarding of Rs. 20,000/- as compensation to Ramadhar. 6. No one has chosen to appear on behalf of respondent No. 1 despite service. 7. I have heard Sh. M.L. Sarin, learned counsel for the appellant-Company and with his assistance have gone through the record of the case. 8. Sh. Sarin has vehemently argued that the Reference Court had noticed the entire evidence on record and had recorded a firm finding of fact that Ramadhar had no individual interest as a lessee in the acquired land and that he was merely working in the interest of the Company. On the basis of the aforesaid findings recorded by the Reference Court Sh. Sarin had argued that the award of Rs. 20,000/- to Ramadhar on alleged purchase lease hold rights in his favour would result in conflicting findings by the Reference Court. 9. I have duly considered the aforesaid arguments of the learned Senior counsel and in my considered view, the present appeal is liable to be accepted. 10. At the outset, it would be relevant to notice some of the findings recorded by the learned Reference Court which are as follows :- "After giving my careful consideration to the argument raised on both sides I am inclined to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner Company. Section 299 of the Companies Act requires a Director to disclose the nature of his concern or interest at a meeting of the Board of Directors, in respect of any agreement or contract entered into by him. The said information would be considered by the Board of Directors. There is nothing on the record to show that Ramadhar has made any disclosure of his interest before the Board of Directors in any meeting of the Board of Directors and as such it cannot be said that Ramadhar was having his individual interest as lessee in this land. His silence in the matter, itself, would suggest that he was working in the interest of the Company. The absence of the mention of this lease deed in the subsequent sale deeds is also quite significant which clearly shows that the Company acquired full ownership rights. It also does not appeal to logic that a Company would have invested a huge amount of Rs. The absence of the mention of this lease deed in the subsequent sale deeds is also quite significant which clearly shows that the Company acquired full ownership rights. It also does not appeal to logic that a Company would have invested a huge amount of Rs. 60,000/- on land which had an encumbrance like a perpetual lease for 99 years. This also suggests that Ramadhar never meant to assert this lease deed in his personal capacity." 11. It has further been observed by the Reference Court as follows :- "It is admitted by Ramadhar that he was one of the directors at the time of purchase of this land. It is also proved on record that he was present when the sale deed was executed in favour of the Company and he paid the sale consideration on behalf of Company. So in this situation even if he had got a lease deed in his favour he has to hold the same for the benefit of the Company petitioner as envisaged by the aforesaid provision of law." 12. However, after making the aforesaid observations, the Reference Court seems to have fallen into an error to up-hold the aforesaid purchase of lease hold rights be Ramadhar, Exhibit R-7, claimed to be executed in his favour conferring any individual rights upon him. It is on the basis of the aforesaid purchase of lease hold rights alone that Ramadhar has been held entitled to get Rs. 20,000/- out of the total compensation of award for the acquired land. Once the Reference Court has itself observed, and rightly held that Ramadhar was having no personal interest in the acquired land and was acting on behalf of the appellant-Company alone, then it cannot be understood as to how Ramadhar was entitled to the award of Rs. 20,000/- and that some amount had been spent by him for purchasing the lease hold rights through deed Exhibit R-7. The learned Reference Court has already held that the aforesaid purchase of lease hold rights if any, was on behalf of the Company. In this view of the matter, Ramadhar had no individual interest in the acquired land. Consequently, the present appeal is allowed, the award of Additional District Judge dated February 4, 1980 is set aside. It is held that the entire compensation of the acquired land shall be payable to the appellant-Company. Appeal allowed.