KACHRULAL HIRALAL DHOOT Vs. GURUDWARA BOARD NANDED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these appeals arise out of apportionment of compensation awarded in respect of survey No. 41 situate at Nanded. The dispute in all these appeals pertains to apportionment and the controversy is between claimant Kachrulal Dhut who is in occupation of the property and who has constructed a house and Gurudwara Takhat Sri Huzur Upchal Nagarsaheb. Survey No. 41 of Nanded has been proposed to be acquired for providing residential quarters for employees of Zilla Parishad, Nanded. The compensation for this survey number was determined under the award as payable to the persons interested at Rs. 17,000/- and the disputes between these two claimants relate only to apportionment.

(2.) In First Appeal Nos. 210 and 211 of 1972 the contention of Mr. Paranjape on behalf of claimant Kachrulal is that the claimant has become the absolute owner of this survey number by reason of adverse possession thereof by him and his ancestors openly and continuously for a period of more than 12 years and the entire amount of compensation has to be awarded to his client. In the alternative it is submitted that when the trial Court awarded 15% out of the total amount of compensation to Gurudwara the amount paid to the Gunidwara was much more than its legitimate share as it should have been reduced. Mr. Deshpande on behalf of the Gurudwara submitted that the trial Court held Gurudwara to be the owner of survey No. 41 and once Gurudwara is held to be the owner the entire amount of compensation ought to have been paid to Gurudwara and no amount ought to have been given to Kaehrulal who was in occupation thereof and whose ancestors had constructed a bungalow thereon. In the alternative he submitted that even if Kachrulal is held to be a permanent tenant or a permanent licensee, still the amount of compensation that has been awarded to him is much more than his legitimate share.

(3.) At the outset it may be stated that though the contention as regards title by adverse possession is raised before the trial Court that plea has not been advanced before us. The short question we have to consider in the present case is, is Gurudwara entitled to the whole of the amount of compensation and if not what part of the compensation should be directed to be paid to Gurudwara ? It is the case of Gurudwara in its statement of claim that survey No. 41 which formed part of old survey No. 12 was an Inam land belonging to Nanded Sikh Gurudwara Saheb. It was allotted to Kachrulal's ancestors for construction of bungalows under the scheme of Abadi. The ownership of the land was not allotted but only permission was granted to construct bungalows retaining the ownership of the land with its owner. It is the case of Gurudwara that Kachrulal and his ancestors were merely licensees who were given permission to construct buildings and the liability was to pay double the laud revenue as licence fee. So far as this plea is concerned, the trial Court has held that Kachrulal and his ancestors were not mere licensees but they were permanent tenants of this survey No. 41 and has directed the total amount of compensation of Rs. 17,000/- awarded in respect of survey No. 41 to be apportioned between Gurudwara and Kachrulal in the ratio of 15% : 85%. The question to be considered in this group of appeals is whether such apportionment is justified.