JAIMAL SINGH Vs. AMAR NATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In a claim for apportionment under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, the appellants contended as alleged landowners, their entitlement to the compensation determined for property acquired by the State under the Land Acquisition Act. The rival contest was entered by one Amarnath and Kishori Lal, who were shown in records as "thekadars" and the Court held that the 'thekadars' ownership had been established by virtue of the Punjab Abolition of Ala Malikiyat and Talukdari Rights Act of 1952 (for short, "the 1952 Act"). The learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, who are before this Court contended that the Court below failed to notice the express entry in the revenue records from the year 1904 till the date when the acquisition took place where their predecessors Karam Singh and Ajit Singh, sons of Khanda Singh had been shown as owners of the property; the mutation that entered documents of transfer by the respondents did not still remove the reference to the appellants or their predecessors as owners of the property having particular shares and even if the respondents were thekadars, they were not cultivating tenants or occupancy tenants who could obtain full ownership in the property. The learned senior counsel would argue that the legal rendering of the effect of the 1952 Act has not been properly appreciated by the Court below. The said Act itself was not attracted to asses the rights canvassed by the respondents.

(2.) The counsel Shri Sharma appearing on behalf of the respondents would counter this plea by contending that the landowners' right was itself purchased as shown through Ex. A-3 which was executed on 13.04.1884 that brings to evidence an important fact that the landowners Bahadur Singh son of Deva Singh and Rakha Singh son of Sukha Singh were forsaking their interest by receipt of consideration of Rs. 140 and in that document, they had admitted to transactions brought about on 29.01.1884 and 05.01.84 (A1 and A2 respectively) transferring the right of occupancy from Brij Raj Singh to Roda Mall, with the express purpose of securing their consent as owners of the property. According to him, even if they were characterized as thekadars, they also became the owners of the property, The 1952 Act secured for the superior owner also called as "ala malik" no more than a right to secure compensation under Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Act. The original landowners Bahadur Singh and Lakha Singh and their successors vis., the appellants, therefore, had no subsisting interest in the property to stake their claim in land acquisition proceedings.

(3.) At the outset, it must be noticed that the contest is only between the persons claiming to be the original owners and the persons, who were shown as thekadars, who assert absolute right in the property. There is no other cultivator or person who is vying for the money determined as compensation payable by way of apportionment alongside the thekadars' claim. The consideration in appeal must therefore be confined to whether the persons claiming as owners, namely, the appellants have still any right to claim the compensation determined by acquisition after the 1952 Act and whether the persons, who were shown as thekadars were entitled to the whole of the amount determined as compensation. The issue has to be resolved only between the parties, who are in lis before Court and I cannot project a contingency of a possible claim by some other person on a plea that the former thekedar is himself only an intermediary and, therefore, not entitled to the entire compensation. If the claim of the appellants as owners were admitted, the appellants also had a grievance that the amount of compensation is not adequate and it should be enhanced.