AMAR NATH Vs. HARYANA STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Amar Nath in this appeal filed against the judgment of the Additional District Judge, Karnal dated March 12, 1986 claims apportionment of compensation for the land acquired claiming himself to be a tenant. His claim was declined by the Additional District Judge. The land was acquired under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act vide notification issued under section 4 of the Act dated October 17, 1978. After the Collector announced the award, the landowners made applications under section 18 of the Act whereas Amar Nath, the appellant, moved an application under section 30 of the Act for apportionment of the compensation. All the applications were referred to the Additional District Judge, Karanal who after inviting pleadings of the parties in different cases framed issues but subsequently disposed of the same vide the impugned judgment. It was held that the appellant Amar Nath had failed to proved that he was a tenant of the disputed land measuring 16 Bighas 1 Biswa comprising Khewat No. 1262, Khatauni No. 3023. Khasra Nos. 9146, 9147 and 9151; Khatauni No. 3024, Khasra Nos. 9099 and 9100. The contention of counsel for the appellant is that in the revenue record, Jamabandis and Khasra Girdawaries, Amar Nath has been shown as a tenant on payment of lagan, therefore, the finding of the Additional District Judge. to the contrary is liable to be set aside. After going through the revenue records produced and arguments addressed by counsel for the parties I find that Amar Nath has failed to prove his tenancy over the disputed land.

(2.) With respect to land covered by Khasra Nos 9099 and 9100, copies of Khasra Girdawaries are Exhibits P. 19 to P. 21 for the period 1972 to 1983 The latest revenue record shows that this land was obtained by Amar Nath, who was in possession thereof in lieu of exchange without payment of batai. Amar Nath, therefore, on the basis of revenue record referred to above, cannot be held to be a tenant of this land.

(3.) With respect to the remaining land measuring, 10 Bighas 8 Biswas comprising Khasra Nos. 9146, 9147 and 9151, no doubt Amar Nath while appearing as Rw. 7 stated that for the last 40 years, the said land was in his possession as a tenant, firstly under the previous owner Fateh Singh and thereafter his son Mahabir Singh, at the rate or Rs. 100/- as lagan. However, this oral evidence is contradicted, by Shamsher Singh R.W. 5. The revenue record comprises Jamabandis for the years 1969-70 (Exhibit R.9) and 1943-44 (Exhibit R. 10). Khasra Girdawaries, Exhibits R. 4 to R. 8, relate to the years 1960 Kharif to 1982 Rabi. The revenue record shows Amar Nath as tenant No. I on payment of Rs. 100/- as lagan Hart Ram as tenant No. 11 on payment of Rs. 10/- as lagan. Hari Ram is father of Parshotam Dass who in fact claimed. to be in possession. The Additional District Judge, rightly observed that when Parshotam Dass appeared as witness and stated that Amar Nath was in actual possession, he was trying to help Amar Nath in this respect which was contrary to the revenue record. His statement was thus rightly ignored in this respect. In this Court, this argument was again pressed into service that relying upon the statement of Parshotam Dass, it should be held that Amar Nath has been in actual possession of this land. This contention cannot be accepted. Firstly, the revenue record does not support it and secondly, as already observed, Amar Nath was not shown therein in actual possession. The person, who was shown in actual possession, was tenant No. 11 i.e. Hari Ram. The mere fact that Amar Nath was shown as tenant No. 1 does not prove his actual. possession as tenant to enable him to claim apportionment of compensation for the land acquired.