HARBANSLAL AND ORS. Vs. BALU JENA AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, the Appellants have challenged the order in the matter of apportionment of compensation between them and Respondent No. 1.

(2.) 31 acres 600 decimals of land were acquired in Revenue village Bomikhal for planned development of New Capital for purpose of a lake. This acquired area included the lands involved in this appeal measuring A1.260 decimals. Appellants purchased the disputed land from the original owners in 1966, and got it mutated in their names. When Land Acquisition Collector awarded compensation of Rs. 91,520/ - to the recorded owners (Appellants) Respondent No. 1 claimed that being a bhag tenant, he is a person interested in the land and is also entitled to compensation.

(3.) LEARNED Subordinate Judge, Bhubaneswar decided the case giving rise to the present appeal in the matter of apportionment of the amount of compensation between both the Parties, that is, Appellants on the one hand and Respondent No. 1 on the other. He took into consideration the evidence, both oral and documentary, adduced by both parties before him. He found that though Appellants were owners of the land being purchasers from the recorded owner, Respondent No. 1 was continuing in cultivating possession as a bhag tenant since about 30 years and was also declared as such under Section 15 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act by the Revenue officer, Bhubaneswar. He, therefore, held that Respondent No. 1 has also got a share in the amount of compensation for the acquired land. As to the quantum in the share of compensation, learned trial Judge relying on Section 13 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act and referring to the commentary of Sanjiva Rao named Law of Land Acquisition Compensation, sixth Edition, dealing with. "persons interested" as defined in Section 3(b) of the Land Acquisition Act, and "enquiry regarding the apportionment" contained in the commentary under Section 11 of the Act at pages 305 - 306, held that Appellants are jointly entitled to one -fourth and Respondent No. 1 to three -fourth of the compensation amount. This finding has been assailed in the present appeal.