Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1337 (BOM)

Ranba s/o. Sattaji v. State of Maharashtra

2008-09-16

P.R.BORKAR

body2008
JUDGMENT : 1. This is an appeal preferred by the person who is dissatisfied with the order of apportionment of compensation passed under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nanded in L.A.R. No. 45 of 1987 decided on 31.07.1989. 2. In short it is case of appellant Ranba that land Survey No.51/1 situated at village Vasarni, Tal. & Dist. Nanded to the extent of 2 Hectares 54 R was acquired by the Government and notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was published. The final award was passed on 19.03.1987. Notices were issued under Section 12 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act to concerned land owners and original appellant Ranba and respondent No.2 Pandu both filed their claim before the Land Acquisition Officer. 3. It is further case of original appellant Ranba that the land Survey No. 51/1 was originally owned by Vamanrao Ghansham Naik. Ranba was declared as the protected tenant and purchaser under the provisions of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as "H.T. & A.L. Act"). The certificate under Section 38-E was issued in favour of appellant Ranba and as such appellant Ranba alone is entitled to the entire compensation amount of the acquired land. 4. On the other hand it is case of respondent No.2 Pandu that his father Narba and Ranba were original tenants of the land. Each had 1/2 share. After death of Narba, as his son respondent No.2 Pandu is entitled to 1/2 share. In the written statement which was filed before the learned Civil Judge, respondent No.2 Pandu has stated that though the land was declared under Section 38-E of the H.T. & A.L. Act in the name of Ranba - the uncle of respondent No.2, 1/2 share thereof was under cultivation and possession of respondent No.2 Pandu and remaining 1/2 share was in possession of appellant Ranba. Total occupancy price was deposited by both jointly in the office of Tahsildar, Nanded, but ownership certificate was issued in the name of Ranba - paternal uncle of respondent No.2 Pandu. At that time Ranba orally agreed to effect mutation of 1/2 share of the declared portion in the name of Pandu. He also executed a bond as "Watnipatra" (partition deed) on 30.03.1981 in favour of Pandu on stamp paper in presence of panchas. At that time Ranba orally agreed to effect mutation of 1/2 share of the declared portion in the name of Pandu. He also executed a bond as "Watnipatra" (partition deed) on 30.03.1981 in favour of Pandu on stamp paper in presence of panchas. Half of the land continued to be in possession and cultivation of respondent No.2 until acquisition. Under the circumstances he is entitled to half amount of the compensation. 5. It is argued vehemently by Adv. Shri N.N. Shinde for the appellant that under the provisions of the H.T.& A.L.Act, enquiries are made. Names of protected tenants were declared. Objections were called and thereafter proceedings under Section 38 were initiated. Respondent No.2 Pandu never raised objection to the sale of land in the name of appellant Ranba and as such he cannot have any more dispute over the exclusive ownership of appellant Ranba. Reference was made to sub-section 6(a) of Section 38 of the H.T.& A.L. Act and it is argued that sale certificate issued to a tenant declaring him to be the purchaser of the land is conclusive evidence of the sale as against land-holder and all persons interested therein. The Civil Court has no jurisdiction to hold that respondent No.2 is entitled to half share. 6. The learned advocate for respondent No.2 heavily relied upon the entries in V.F. No. 7/12 extracts produced at Exh.27 and 28. He also argued that the case sought to be made out now was never advanced before the learned Civil Judge. In-fact, no application or written submission was filed before the learned Civil Judge. There was no contest before the learned Civil Judge by appellant Ranba by filing any pleading or application. He referred to para 6 of the judgment in which it is specifically stated that Ranba has not filed say after receipt of reference in the Court. However, he had filed say before Land Acquisition Officer on 25.06.1987 and said say was taken into consideration. It was also argued that no evidence whatsoever was filed by Ranba in rebuttal of the documentary evidence produced by respondent No.2 Pandu. 7. It is no more disputed that appellant Ranba was uncle of respondent No.2 Pandu as observed in para 8 of judgment of the Trial Court. One Sattaji had five sons, namely, Nivratti, Tukaram, Ranba, Narba, Sakharam and Tukaram. Respondent No.2 Pandu is son of Narba. 7. It is no more disputed that appellant Ranba was uncle of respondent No.2 Pandu as observed in para 8 of judgment of the Trial Court. One Sattaji had five sons, namely, Nivratti, Tukaram, Ranba, Narba, Sakharam and Tukaram. Respondent No.2 Pandu is son of Narba. The V.F. No. 7/12 extracts at Exh.27 and 28 which are from 1960-61 to 1984-85 show that from 1960-61 both appellant Ranba and Narba - father of respondent No.2 were shown to be joint tenants till the year 1970-71. In 1971-72 for the first time Ranba was shown to have been cultivating 1/2 portion of land as a tenant and Narba was shown to be cultivating remaining half of the land. The entries of the year 1972-73 to 1974-75 show both appellant Ranba and Narba father of respondent No.2 as each cultivating half portion of the land as tenants. Mode of cultivation was shown as "3". In the year 1975-76 name of Pandu was substituted in place of name of Narba and he was shown to be in possession of half share as tenant and said entry is continued till year 1984-85. For the first time in 1985-86 name of CIDCO was entered (which is acquiring body), as the owner and possessor. So, continuous entries for 24-25 years which were never challenged supported case of respondent No.2 Pandu that respondent No.2 Pandu and his father were tenants of half portion of the land. Earlier, there was joint cultivation by Ranba and Narba and thereafter he started cultivating half portion of the land. 8. It is true that sale certificate cannot be challenged and it is conclusive proof of the statutory sale under the provisions of H.T.& A.L.Act. However, the provisions of H.T.& A.L.Act do not prevent a joint family from being tenant of a land. Similarly, it does not prevent one or more persons jointly taking a land on lease and thus becoming joint tenants. The averments in the written submission filed by respondent No.2 Pandu at Exh.19 in the Trial Court regarding the occupancy price being paid by both appellant Ranba and respondent No.2 - Pandu and about promise by Ranba to Pandu to mutate half of the land in his name and about subsequently executing the partition deed on 30.03.1981 were not controverted. There is no denial of said averments either by way of reply or by way of oral evidence. There is no denial of said averments either by way of reply or by way of oral evidence. So, said pleadings remained uncontroverted and as such admitted in the facts of the present case. In absence of any reply or evidence in rebuttal of averments in para 3 of Exh.19 filed by respondent No.2, it cannot be said that the Trial Court has committed any error in holding that the appellant and respondent No.2 were each entitled to half share in the compensation awarded. Under the circumstances of this case it can be inferred that the sale certificate issued in the name of appellant Ranba was obtained for himself and his nephew Pandu as both were joint tenants of the land. 9. In this view of the matter, this appeal deserves to be dismissed. Hence, the first appeal is dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs.