PRUSHOTTAM HOTA Vs. JAYARAM ROTA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal from the decision of the Arbitrator Hirakud Dam Project Land Organization, Sambalpur, disallowing the Appellant's claim for preferential treatment in the matter of apportionment of the compensation money for the Gountiayi interest acquired in village Mangalpur in connection with the Hirakud Dam Project. Admittedly there were several co -sharer Gountias ill the village but the Appellant was also the Sadar Lambardar. The lands acquired were all rayoti lands. The total compensation payable to the 16 annas proprietors (all co -sharer gountias) was first estimated by the Land Acquisition Officer. The apportionment was made amongst the co -sharers according to their shares. The Appellant however contended that he was the Sadar Lambardar of the village and as such one fifth of the total compensation should be specially allotted to him and the balance distributed amongst all the co -sharer gountias including him self according to their respective shares in the village. The learned Arbitrator overruled this objection holding that the Appellant had no interest in the village as Sadar Lambardar and that the post was merely an office for which he received remuneration so long as he discharged the duties. As no duties were required to be performed after the acquisition of the said village, no remuneration was payable and no deduction can be made from the compensation money for such remuneration.

(2.) THE Plaintiff's contention requires careful consideration of the nature of the rights of the Lambardar and the cosharer gountias in a gountiayi village in Sambalpur district. It is admitted that there are several co -sharer gountias in the village including the Appellant. Clause (8 -a) of Section 4 of the Central Provinces Land Revenue Act, 1881 says that a gountia is also a proprietor, i.e., a landlord. Clause (11) of the same section says that Lambardar is a person appointed in the prescribed manner to represent the proprietary body in its relations with the Government. His duties are described in Sections 137 and 138 of the Act. Section 137 includes him amongst the village officers. But Rule VII of the Rules framed under that section says that the Lambardar gountia is entitled to receive remuneration as Lambardar from the sharers at a certain specified rate. Rule 1(2)(c) further says that in making appointment of Lambardars the Deputy Commissioner shall have regard to the wishes of the co -sharer -Gountias. Rule V provides for his removal on specified grounds. Section 138 says that his primary duty is to collect and pay into the Government treasury the land revenue payable by all the co -sharer. Proprietors Section 139 entitles him to collect his remuneration from the co -sharer -proprietors. Section 149 says that any sum payable to him may be recovered as arrear of land revenue. In the Central Provinces Tenancy Act of 1898, in the note to Clause (6) of Section 2, it is mentioned that a gountia in a Government village in Sambalpur district is the landlord.

(3.) THE compensation is payable to all the co -sharer -landlords on account of the acquisition of their landlord's interest in the village and it should be apportioned amongst them according to their shares in the landlord's right. In view of my holding the post of Lambardar to be a mere office, it is obvious that the remuneration payable to him cannot be included in the landlords ' interest, nor can it be deducted from the compensation payable.