LAKHI MAL Vs. MANAK LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The land in dispute was acquired by the State Government for Faridabad complex and the compensation before the Land Acquisition Collector was claimed by two rival sets of claimants namely the landowners and the tenants. The Land Acquisition Collector could not decide this matter and referred the matter of apportionment of compensation to the learned District Court under section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The learned Additional District Judge, Gurgaon, by the impugned award, found that the appellants were perpetual lessees whereas the respondents were landowners and apportioned the compensation in the ratio of 75% :- 25% between them. The perpetual lessees felt dissatisfied and have come to this Court in this appeal.

(2.) The respondents-landowners, when could not be served in the ordinary way, were served by publication in the newspaper. Hence the service is complete. In spite of that no appearance has been put in on behalf of the respondents. Accordingly I proceed to decide the appeal ex-parte.

(3.) Shri M.S. Jain has urged that the appellants were perpetual lessees of the respondents and subsequently acquired occupancy rights in the acquired land for which matter they moved the Revenue Court and the Revenue Court vide decree dated 29th July, 1976, declared Vinod Kumar, appellant No. 2 to be the occupancy tenant of the respondents. A copy of this decree has been placed on the record as Ex. R-2. Similarly, Lakhi Mal appellant also was perpetual tenant of the respondents on the remaining land and he also filed suit before the Revenue Court for declaration of his title as occupancy tenant of the respondents. The Revenue Court declared Lakhi Mal to be the occupancy tenant against which order the respondents filed appeal and that appeal was also dismissed. A copy of the decree passed by the appellate Court has been placed on record as Ex. R. 3. Relying on the aforesaid two documents, it is urged that both the appellants became owners by virtue of section 3 of the Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act, 1952 and as such, were entitled to the entire compensation. I find merit in this contention.