LOOMCHAND SAIT Vs. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE first claimant in O. P. No. 140 of 1965 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Tiruchirappalli which arose out of a reference made under Sections 30 and 31 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894) hereinafter referred to as the Act, is the appellant herein. An extent of 44 acres and 35 cents in S. F. Nos. 1/5 -B and 1/6 in K. Sathanur village was acquired by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruchirappalli, for construction of a Central Godown at Tiruchirappalli for the storage of foodgrains. By an award dated 24th April 1965, the Collector awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,600/ - per acre and the total amount of compensation inclusive of the statutory solatium and interest from the date of taking possession came to Rs. 97,977.94. As the lands acquired stood registered in the names of Peerdhan Jugarmal Sait, the father of the appellant herein, the fourth Respondent herein (the fourth claimant) and the fifth Respondent herein (the fifth claimant), the Collector referred the matter to the Court under Section 30 of the Act for apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested and deposited the amount into the Court. The appellant herein filed a claim statement through his Advocate on 11 -11 -1965 to the effect that he was entitled to 10 acres out of 22 acres and 34 cents acquired in S. F. No. 1/5 -B inclusive of the well portion and that therefore the compensation amount for that portion should be paid to him. He filed I. A. No. 218 of 1966 on 16 -7 -1966 for permitting him to file an additional claim statement, the effect of the same being to substitute the new statement for the earlier claim statement filed by him through the Advocate.

(2.) WE may immediately make two positions clear. The first is, the learned counsel for the appellant argued the appeal solely with reference to the judgment of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge and not a scrap of paper has been prepared and filed before the Court for the conduct of this appeal and the learned counsel himself did not invite our attention to any other record except the judgment appealed against. The second is, though one of the grounds in the grounds of appeal has canvassed the correctness of the order of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge dismissing I. A. No. 218 of 1966 preferred by the appellant herein, for substituting a new claim statement in the place of the claim statement filed by him on 11 -11 -1965, absolutely no argument was advanced before us with reference to the said order of dismissal passed by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge. Even with regard to the claim of the appellant based on the claim statement preferred by him on 11 -11 -1965, the learned counsel merely took us through the order of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge.

(3.) WE may immediately mention that the appellant having put forward a claim of title by adverse possession, the burden was exclusively on him to make out that claim. The appellant as P. W. 3 gave evidence to the effect that all these years the cattle owned by Pinjrapole Society (Society giving protection to disabled cows) were being grazed in the property sold in Court -auction. The said society is admittedly a public limited one and P. W. 3 has no connection with it. However, P. W. 3 stated that the property sold in court -auction belonged to Joharmal Sowcar and Sons of which he was a managing partner. As rightly pointed out by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, the said firm was not claiming the compensation amount and it was the appellant who in his individual capacity was claiming the compensation amount. Consequently we agree with the conclusion of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge that there was neither pleading nor satisfactory evidence to show that P. W. 3 either individually or as the managing partner of Joharmal Sowcar and Sons was in possession of the properties after the court -auction sale for over the statutory period of 12 years and thereby acquired title to the same by adverse possession.