DHOOM SINGH Vs. RAM KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order of the Additional District Judge, Karnal, passed on a reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter called the Act).

(2.) Land measuring 31 Kanals 10 Marlas comprised in Khasra No. 200/- 6, 7, 8, 14, 15/1, situated in village Gooindhar district karnal, was acquired by the Haryana Government. The Land Acquisition Collector, Karnal, vide award dated February 28, 1985, awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 30,000/- per acre for Chahi/Nehri land, Ram Kumar, respondent, claimed reference under Section 30 of the Act for apportionment of the compensation on the averments that he alongwith Roshan Lal and Des Raj sons of Ram Sarup and Bal Chand son of Telu Ram were recorded as the owners of the land, vide jamabandi for the year 1981-82; all the co-sharers mutually and orally partitioned the land about six years ago and the land comprised in khewat No. 757 rectangle No. 186 khasra No. 23/1 min measuring 36 kanals 19 marlas and the land measuring 16 kanals comprised in khatauni No. 758, rectangle No. 200 and khasra Nos. 8 and 13; total measuring 52 kanals 19 marlas fell to his share; since the time of oral partition, he was in exclusive possession of the land as the owner; Roshan Lal and Des Raj sons of Ram Sarup owners of one-third share and Bal Chand son of Telu Ram owner of one third share of the total holding, sold their respective shares to Darshani and Dhoom Singh, respondents Nos. 2 and 3 (in the reference) vide registered sale deed dated August 12, 1981, were put in possession of the specific khasra nos. and they were in cultivating possession of the same; land measuring 31 kanals 10 marlas acquired by the Haryana Government was under his exclusive possession as the owner; respondents Nos. 2 and 3 were not entitled to the compensation and that he alone was entitled to the entire compensation as respondents Nos 2 and 3 were in possession of their respective pieces of land. Thus he challenged the award of the Collector whereby Ram Kumar respondent, was found entitled to compensation to the extent of one-third only and Darshani Devi and Dhoom Singh were held entitled to two-thirds of the compensation amount. The reference was contested by the appellants Darshani and Dhoom Singh, appellants. They pleaded that they had purchased two-thirds of the total holding belonging to Roshan Lal and Des Raj sons of Ram Sarup and Bal Chand son of Telu Ram vide registered sale deeds dated August 12, 1981. They further stated that they had purchased only the share of the vendors out of the total land measuring 158 kanals 13 marlas. Moreover, under section 30 of the Act, the Court is to see the title of the parties with respect to the land acquired and not the possession thereof. It was further prayed that the petition under section 30 of the Act be dismissed as they were also entitled to the compensation to the extent of their two-thirds share. The Haryana Government did not file any reply. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues :

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that vide sale deeds, Exhibits A.1 and A.2, what was sold to them was the share in the total land measuring 158 kanals 13 marlas, but as regards the possession under the sale deeds, the Khasra Nos. which were in possession of their vendors were given to them. Thus, argued the learned counsel, not only that, in the jamabandi for the year 1976-77 and subsequent thereto, the land is still shown to be in joint ownership of all the parties. According to the learned counsel, the land was never partitioned. There was no oral partition, as alleged by Ram Kumar, and if at all it was there, it was not given effect to in the revenue records. Thus, argued the learned counsel, the land being joint and having not been partitioned, the appellants being the co-shares in the land were entitled to the amount of compensation to the extent of two-thirds thereof. In support of the contention, the learned counsel relied upon the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Bhartu V. Ram Sarup, 1981 PunLJ 204; Suba Singh V. Mohinder Singh, 1983 PunLJ 429 and Tek Singh V. Jaswant Singh, 1972 CurLJ 20.