Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 651 (PNJ)

Rani Hemlata v. Dalip Singh

2006-02-22

S.N.AGGARWAL

body2006
Judgment S.N.Aggarwal, J. 1. The Government of Haryana acquired the land measuring 93 kanals 1 marlas for the establishment of Vegetable Market in Jind. The award was passed by the Land Acquisition Collector on 26.10.1978. 2. Against the said award, Dalip Singh-respondent No. 1 in his appeal and who had filed cross-objections (henceforth to be called respondent), filed a petition under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (in short the Act), for enhancement of compensation. Besides that he also claimed to be an occupancy tenant and the sole claimant to the entire amount of compensation. He also denied the entitlement of Rani Hem Lata and Kanwar Rambir Singh (appellants in this appeal) to any part of the compensation amount. 3. The present appellants filed reply. They denied if Dalip Singh was permanent or non-permanent occupancy tenant on the suit land or if he was entitled to any part of the amount of compensation. They claimed the total amount of compensation on the plea that they were the exclusive owners in possession of the suit land. 4. Similarly, Bansi Dass, Ram Chander and Brahma Nand (respondents No. 2 to 4 in the present appeal), also filed an application under Section 31 of the Act. They also claimed that they were the owners in possession of the land in dispute, as they were the muafidars of this land and mutation was sanctioned in favour of their ancestors on 13.10.1873. Therefore, they alone were entitled to the amount of compensation of the land measuring 93 kanals 1 marla. 5. Reply to this application was also filed by the present appellants and the claim of these respondents was also controverted. The learned trial Court framed the following issues: 1. Whether Dalip Singh claimant is cultivating the land in dispute as tenant since the last 16 years and as such is entitled to any compensation, if so, to what amount? OPP 2. Whether Ram Chander, Bansi Dass and Brahma Nand, are owners in possession of the land in dispute, if so, to what amount of compensation they are entitled? OPP 3. Whether Smt. Hem lata and Ranbir Singh claimants are the owners of the land in dispute and as such are entitled to compensation and to what amount? 4. Relief. 6. Ram Chander-claimant appeared as PW-1. He also proved copy of the Judgment Exhibit P-9. OPP 3. Whether Smt. Hem lata and Ranbir Singh claimants are the owners of the land in dispute and as such are entitled to compensation and to what amount? 4. Relief. 6. Ram Chander-claimant appeared as PW-1. He also proved copy of the Judgment Exhibit P-9. Siya Ram, Patwari of Halqa Jind appeared as PW-2, Pirthi Singh, Office Clerk of Tehsil Office, Jind appeared as PW-3. Rani Hem Lata (appellant) as PW-4. The appellants also tendered in evidence documents Exhibit P-11 to P-22 and closed their evidence. 7. On the other hand, Dalip Singh-respondent appeared as PW-5 and Jagan Nath appeared as PW-6. He also proved documents Exhibit P-5/1 to PW-5/5 and closed the evidence. 8. On the basis of this evidence, the learned trial Court came to the conclusion vide Judgment dated 23.2.1982 that Dalip Singh was a tenant in possession and accordingly, issue No. 1 was declined in his favour. Issue No. 2 was also decided in favour of Ram Chander, Bansi Dass and Brahma Nand, respondents, while issue No. 3 was decided in favour of the present appellants and they were held to be owners of the suit land. 9. Accordingly, the learned trial Court awarded 3/4th share of the amount of compensation to the owners i.e. the present appellants. Out of the remaining 1/4th share, 1/2 share was given to Dalip Singh-respondent and the remaining 1/2 share was distributed among the other three respondents. 10. Aggrieved against this Judgment, the present appeal was filed by the owners, namely, Rani Hem Lata and her son Kanwar Rambir Singh (both died during the pendency of the appeal), objecting the payment of 1/4th share of the amount compensation to the respondents. Similarly, cross-objections were also filed by Dalip Singh, objecting the payment of 3/4th share of amount of compensation to the appellants. 11. The submission of learned Counsel for the appellants was that Dalip Singh had pleaded himself to be an occupancy tenant, while the evidence led by Dalip Singh was beyond the scope of pleadings and cannot be made the basis of the Judgment in his favour. In this context, reference was made to the provisions of Section 5 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 and it was submitted that only a person acquires a right of occupancy tenant, who was in possession of that land for the last two generations and for more than twenty years. In this context, reference was made to the provisions of Section 5 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 and it was submitted that only a person acquires a right of occupancy tenant, who was in possession of that land for the last two generations and for more than twenty years. These facts were neither pleaded by respondent No. 1, nor proved by him, therefore, he had failed to prove that he was an occupancy tenant. Reliance was also placed by the learned Counsel for the appellants on the Judgments of this Court reported as Sada Ram and Ors. v. Gajjan 1970 P.L.J. 89, Devi Chand v. Financial Commissioner, Haryana and Ors. 1971 P.L.J. 200, Brahm Dutt v. Inder Singh and Anr. 1977 P.L.J. 257 and Ganesh Dutt and Ors. v. Molu Ram and Ors. 1987 P.L.J. 435. Hence, it was submitted that the evidence led by Dalip Singh was beyond the scope of his pleadings cannot be taken into consideration. 12. This submission has been considered. The Judgments relied upon by the learned Counsel for the appellants are not applicable to the facts of the present case. In Ganesh Dutts case (supra), the tenant had denied relationship of landlord and tenant and it was held that he had forfeited his right of tenancy. Similarly, the Brahm Dutts case (supra), related to the preemption of the land. Devi Chands case (supra), also related to the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, in which it was held that if a tenant commits breach of the conditions laid down in any provisions of the Act, he becomes liable to be evicted. Similarly, in Sada Rams case (supra), the tenant had forfeited the right of tenancy, having denied the relationship of landlord and tenant. Therefore, none of these Judgments are applicable to the facts of the present case. 13. Dalip Singh had obviously pleaded that he was tenant in possession of the suit land. He had claimed to be occupancy tenant. It is a different matter that he could not fulfil the legal requirements of acquiring occupancy rights within the meaning of Punjab Tenancy Act, but his plea that he was tenant in possession is clearly proved and the evidence led by him is in accordance with his pleadings. The revenue record proved on the file also makes out that Dalip Singh was a tenant in possession on the suit land. The revenue record proved on the file also makes out that Dalip Singh was a tenant in possession on the suit land. Even Rani Hem Lata-appellant in her statement has stated that "Dalip Singh, the second rival claimant cultivated the land in dispute only for one year on Batai". Although, she has stated that Dalip Singh cultivated the land only for one year but she has admitted that he had cultivated the land as a tenant. Her version that it was cultivated for a period of one year only is rebutted by other documentary evidence, namely, jamabandi for the year 1974-75 Exhibit P-1 and other revenue record. Therefore, there is voluminous documentary evidence that Dalip Singh was in possession as a tenant on a part of the land acquired. Therefore, the findings of the learned trial Court on issue No. 1 are upheld. 14. So far as the possession of other respondents is concerned, that is also proved by documentary evidence. The respondents have also placed on the file a copy of the order passed by this Court in C.W.P. No. 638 of 1977, decided on 26.5.1997 (Exhibit P-9). This petition was filed by Bansi Dass, Mahant Ram Chander and Brahma Nand (present respondents) against the State of Haryana, including, against the present appellants, seeking to restrain the respondents from dispossessing the petitioners from the land belonging to Smadhgans, in which the State had undertaken not to acquire the Smadh and to provide the passage. This document, therefore, also proves that these respondents were in possession of the land attached to the Smadhs. Otherwise also, the revenue record reveals that part of the land acquired was in possession of these three respondents. These respondents, however, have failed to prove if they were muafidars of the suit land. 15. Since the land acquired, was in possession of the respondents, therefore, the learned trial Court had rightly allowed 1/4th share of the amount of compensation to the respondents and 3/4th share of the amount of compensation to the appellants. Therefore, the appellants are not entitled to anything more than what has been allowed to them by the learned trial Court. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellants stands dismissed. 16. Therefore, the appellants are not entitled to anything more than what has been allowed to them by the learned trial Court. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellants stands dismissed. 16. So far as, the cross-objections are concerned, the appellants, being the owners of the suit land, were entitled to 3/4th share of the amount of compensation, which has been rightly allowed to them by the learned trial court. Dalip Singh respondent has not disputed the grant of 1/2 of 1/4th share of the amount of compensation to the other respondents even in the cross objections filed by him. Therefore, the cross-objections are also dismissed. In the net result, the impugned Judgment dated 23.2.1982 is upheld. The appeal and the cross-objections are dismissed.