JOGINDER SINGH Vs. GRAM PANCHAYAT URJANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is tenant's appeal filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity 'the Act') challenging the order of Additional District Judge, Ambala dated 31.3.1987 holding that the tenant-appellant is entitled to apportionment to the extent of the third share of compensation in respect of the land acquired vide notification issued under Section 4 of the Act on 30.7.1979.

(2.) Brief facts of the case as discernible from the record as well as from the judgment of the Additional District Judge are that a notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 30.7.1979 for acquiring 50.89 acres of land for the purposes of development of Marshy area in between Dadupur and Tejewala for fish culture. The Land Acquisition Collector announced his award on 21.3.1980 awarding compensation @ Rs. 5760/- per acre for banjar salab and Rs. 1440/- per acre for Gair Mumkin land which included solatium. The acquired land included an area of 26 Kanals 4 Marias belonging to the ownership of Panchayat deh. This area in the jamabandis was recorded in cultivating possession of Joginder Singh the tenant-appellant who was described as co-sharer. Both Joginder Singh as well as Panchayat Deh asserted their claim to the compensation amount of Rs. 18,864/- excluding solatium.

(3.) Joginder Singh, tenant-appellant produced in evidence documents Exs.A1 to A5 copies of jamabandis commencing from 1.968-69 and Ex.A6 to A9 copies of khasra girdawaris for the year 1973-74 onwards. Reliance was also placed by the Patwari on mutation Ex.A10 showing that the land was mutated in favour of Fisheries Department. The tenant-appellant also produced AW2 Gurmail Singh son of Bawa Singh aged 75 years, a farmer from village Urjani and also produced Dalip Singh AW3 and Joginder Sigh AW4 in support of his claim. All these witnesses have orally stated with regard to possession of the tenant-appellant. The respondent, however, on the other hand had produced Kartar Singh, Sarpanch, RW1 who had stated that the land was shamlat deh and there was no river action resulting into possession of tenant-appellant. However, possession of the tenant-appellant was admitted by him.