SOHAN SINGH Vs. MANMOHAN NATH, AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal is against the judgment of the Additional District Judge exercising jurisdiction as a Reference Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act. The adjudication related to acquisition of property of 62 kanals 11 marlas of agricultural land that belonged to respondents 2 and 3 for construction of a New Mandi Township at Ferozepore City in the year 1978. The appellant claimed that he was a tenant in relation to the property and at the time of acquisition, he had actually raised some crops and trees and had also expended for improvement of the land. It appears on ascertainment of compensation payable, the owners had moved an application under Section 18 for enhancement while the appellant had moved under Section 30 before the Collector for apportionment of the compensation determined by the Collector. The reference had, therefore, been made, according to the petitioner, both under Sections 18 and 30. The District Judge had enhanced compensation as originally determined by the Collector to Rs.1,800/-per kanal. The claim of the appellant, however, had been rejected totally. It is against this judgment rejecting the appellant's claim that is the subject matter of appeal.

(2.) Dealing with the evidence adduced on behalf the appellant, the Court below had considered the evidence of the appellant, who had stated that his father was a tenant of the acquired land for nearly 30 years till he died in the year 1974. He stated that he had continued as a tenant after the death of his father and had improved the land by spending Rs.20,000/-and also installed a tubewell and constructed a kotha thereon. It was his evidence that his father had planted three pipal trees worth Rs.5,000/-to Rs.6,000/-and at the time of acquisition, there were crops of the value of Rs.60,000/-to Rs.65,000/-. The tenant claimed that the owners themselves had not reserved their lands as required for personal cultivation and the petitioner had a right to purchase the tenanted premises under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act. He had also tendered into evidence the copies of jamabandi (Ex.R1 to R4) and khasra girdwari (Ex.R5 and R6) in evidence of his possession and personal cultivation of the property. The landlord had contested the appellant's claim on the ground that when he was responding to a notice under Section 9, he did not make any claim in relation to share of any compensation that was only asking for. He contended that the property belonged to the respondents along with 6 other persons and no part of it could be treated as surplus. Opposing the claim of the tenant for the value of the trees, originally the landlords contended that the trees had been planted more than 150 years back by their predecessor.

(3.) Dealing with the contentions of parties of whether the appellant had made a claim in relation to the shares of compensation payable for the property, the Court held that it had summoned the original records and found that the petitioner's claim for half share of the amount paid for his alleged tenancy right seemed to have been interpolated. He found the ground for rejecting the claim of the tenant that since he had no made any claim for compensation for the tenancy rights, he had forfeited such a right and he cannot make such a claim. Dealing with the issue of whether the tenant had a right to purchase the property under Section 18 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, the Court found that there was nothing to show the landlords were big landlords and the property was liable for sale in favour of the tenant. The Court found as a matter of fact that the tenant and his father had been in possession since 1952-53, but there was no proof that the land could be claimed as a matter of right to be purchased being not included in the reserved area of the landowners. The landlord had contended that the tenant could have, if at all, exercised his right of purchase within a period of one year from the date of commencement of Punjab Land Reforms Act of 1972 which came into effect on 02.04.1973. The limitation to apply for the purchase expired on 02.04.1974 and, therefore, the tenant cannot press for such a right before acquisition proceedings, when the notification for acquisition had been made as late as on 03.11.1978. This objection was upheld by the Court below to uphold the contention of the landlord and to deny to the tenant any share of the compensation.