MANGAT RAM Vs. SHAM LAT PATTI KILOHRE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in the present appeal is to the award of the learned court below, whereby in a petition under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act') regarding apportionment of compensation, the present appellants have been awarded 60% thereof and 40% has been determined as share of the respondent.

(2.) Briefly, the facts of the case are that vide notification dated 17.11.1982, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act'), State of Haryana acquired 256.84 acres of land in the revenue estate of village Jharsa (Gurgaon) for residential, commercial and industrial area of Sector 15 in Gurgaon. The same was followed by notification dated 10.12.1984, issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') announced the award on 21.9.1986. As there was a dispute about apportionment of compensation, the appellants filed reference under Section 30 of the Act with the plea that they were entitled to receive the entire amount of compensation being Dholidars. Vide impugned award, the learned court below held the appellants entitled to receive 60% compensation. It is this award, which is impugned in the present appeal.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that as per the evidence produced on record by the appellants, they were Dholidars in the land in question, which was acquired by the State. Dholi had been given to them as Purnath, as is evident from the jamabandi for the year 1981-82 (Ex. P1). Once a Dholi has been given as Purnath, it is not reverted back to the donor and the donee becomes its absolute owner. He further submitted that the factum of the appellants being Dholidars is not even disputed by the respondent as no appeal has been filed by it challenging the finding of the learned court below to that extent. While relying upon a judgment of this Court in Ram Pat v. Mangal, (2009-4) PLR 59, the submission was that the appellants are entitled to receive the entire amount of compensation for the acquired land and the award of the learned court below directing apportionment in the ratio of 60:40 between the appellants and the respondent, deserves to be set aside.