PIARE LAL Vs. COL. HIS HIGHNESS RAJA SIR HARINDER SINGH BRAR BANS BAHADUR RULER OF THE FORMER FARIDKOT, STATE, FARIDKOT AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY notification dated July 24, 1963, issued under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), land was acquired in village Ballabgarh, District Gurgaon, for the construction of an Industrial -cum -Housing Estate. The Land Acquisition Collector made three belts, namely, A. B and C, and awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 3/ - Rs. 2/ - and Rs 1/ for each belt respectively, belt 'A' being within 500 feet, belt 'B' being 501 to 1300 feet and belt 'C' being beyond (sic) feet, from Delhi -Mathura road. It is worthwhile to mention here that Col. H.H. Raja Sir Harinder Singh Brar, respondent, is the land -owner whereas Piare Lal, appellant, is the tenant No compensation was awarded to Piare Lal for his tenancy rights.

(2.) AGAINST the award of the Land Acquisition Collector, the Land owner sought reference under section 18 of the Act for enhancement of compensation whereas the appellant -tenant claimed reference under section 30 of the Act for the apportionment of the compensation between him and the land owner. Both the references were disposed of by the Additional District Judge, Gurgaon, by award dated December 16. 1967, whereby he enhanced compensation for the belts A, B & C to Rs. 4/ -, Rs. 3/ - and Rs. 2/ - respectively, but declined to apportion the compensation in favour of the tenant on the ground that he had so marketable title or interest in the land which for all intents and purposes vested absolutely in the State on account of acquisition, by virtue of the provisions of section 16 of the Act. He also held that the application filed by the tenant under section 18 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, had been dismissed and, therefore, he had no right to purchase the land under that Act. It was further held that no copy of Wajib -ul -arz had been brought on the record to show that in case of acquisition of land, be would be entitled to compensation as a tenant -at -will.

(3.) THE admitted facts are that 41 Kanals and 4 Marias of land were in possession of Piare Lal, appellant as a tenant -at -will, under Col. H.H. Raja Sir Harinder Singh Brar, respondent. In this appeal we are only concerned with 'he apportionment of compensation between the landlord and the tenant with regard to the above mentioned land as besides this, the land owner owned 2/7th share in the Shamilat Deh as well. It is admitted by both sides that the appellant is not entitled to apportionment of compensation with regard to the Shamilat land, the compensation of which will entirely belong to the respondent -landowner.