INDER SINGH Vs. PUNJAB STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by Inder Singh against the judgment of District Judge, Ropar, dated October 21, 1987, whereby he decided a reference made under section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act holding that Gulwant Singh was entitled to 1/2 share and Inder Singh and Puran Singh 1/4 share each of the land in dispute which was acquired and thus they were entitled to receive compensation accordingly for the land acquired. The claim of Inder Singh was that he was entitled to compensation for the entire acquired land as the same had fallen to his share in a petition which was effected some time in 1976. Others claim that there was no partition and they were entitled to receive compensation as co-owners. In the replication Inder Singh reiterated his claim of private partition. The following issue was framed:-

(2.) In appeal miscellaneous application was filed for taking into consideration additional evidence, copies of the mutations sanctioned by the revenue authorities regarding the private partition (C. M. No. 44-Cl/1988). Subsequently copy of the order passed by Additional Deputy Commissioner exercising powers of the collector, Ropar, dated August 10, 1988 was also filed for being taken into consideration rejecting the mutations sanctioned on the basis of the agreements dated June 17,1969 and March 26,1976.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant relying upon the Privy Council judgment in Manche Anege Akne v. Manche Kajo Ababio, 1927 AIR(PC) 262 has argued that since possession of Inder Singh appellant over the land acquired has been established for a period of about 18 years prior to acquisition, he should be allowed to withdraw the entire compensation for the acquired land. The Privy Council had held that where at the time of acquisition the land acquired was found to be in the sole and exclusive possession of one, that one was prima facie entitled to the compensation money and any other person claiming the money must prove a better title in himself. The ratio of the decision aforesaid cannot be applied to the case in hand. In that case counter-claims were made to the land acquired whereas in the present case the dispute is between two co-owners. Possession of one co-owner will be deemed to be possession of other even if one is found to be in exclusive possession of the entire joint land. This position would continue till partition is effected between the joint owners. Thus the question for consideration in the present case is as to whether Inder Sigh, the appellant, has not been successful in establishing a completed private partition between the joint owners. In my view he has failed to do so.