GRAM PANCHAYAT Vs. RAO PIRTHI SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Gram Panchayat, Majra-appellant herein seeks setting aside of the judgment rendered by Shri Surinder Sarup, Additional District Judge, Ambala, dated March 30, 1979 vide which reference made by the Land Acquisition Collector Under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act was disposed of by holding that it is Rao Pirthi Singh, who is entitled to the, entire compensation on account of acquisition of land owned by him and that the Gram Panchayat is not entitled to apportionment of 1/3rd being tenant.

(2.) Brief facts of the case reveal that in pursuance of the government notification dated 20.5.1971 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, which was followed by declaration Under Section 6 on 11.4.1972, the State of Haryana acquired 17.87 acres of land in village Majra, Tehsil Naraingarh, District Ambala for public purpose, namely, for constructing New Haryana State Highway direct road from mile No. 28 on Ambala-Jagadhri road to Panchkula passing through the Haryana territory (bye-pass Shahzadpur). Vide his award dated 23.1.1973 the Land Acquisition Collector determined compensation for the acquired land. Whereas, barani land was assessed, at Rs. 3600/- per acre, banjar zadid @ 2400/- per acre and Gair mumkin @ Rs. 1600/- per acre. Inasmuch as there was a dispute between Rao Pirthi Singh and Gram Panchayat, Shahzadpur Majra regarding claim to the awarded compensation of the acquired land, the Land Acquisition Collector referred the dispute Under Section 30 of the Act to the Court on an application moved by the Gram Panchayat. In the application filed by the Gram Panchayat on 2.2.1973 it was stated that the land in question originally belonged to Rao Pirthi Singh and. was kept for charand for malkan and gair malkan Bahshingdan deh as per the orders of the High Court and it had been in possession of Bashindgan Deh and that Bashindgan deh were and continued to be in possession when notification Under Section 4 was issued. It was further stated in the application that it was being filed on behalf of and for the benefit of all the Bashindgan deh.

(3.) Rao Pirthi Singh entered defence and pleaded in his written statement that the land in question was lying banjar, thus, incapable of being cultivated. Assuming that the land was gair mumkin charand, the people who grazed their cattle in it were merely licensees, and they were never in possession owners. The land in fact was given to the Forest Department by him and it was he who was enjoing possession of the land. He also pleaded that Bashindgan deh is an indeterminate body and Gram Panchayat, Majra nor the other applicants had any interest in property. They in fact had no locus standi to move the application. He also pleaded that! he had been transferring the property belonging to him according to his own choice as also that Bashindgan deh never made an applicationUnder Section 9 of the Act. He also took some other preliminary objections.