RAVI KANTA Vs. LAND ACQUISITION TRIBUNAL HISSAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In C.W.P. No. 741 of 1988, the petitioner is Smt. Ravi Kanta, widow of Professor Muni Subrat Dass Jain (hereinafter to be called as the landlord). C.W.P. No. 5653 of 1988 has been filed by Bishan Sarup (hereinafter to be called as the tenant). The dispute relates to land measuring 307 square yards over which two shops existed as raised by the landlord and some construction was subsequently raised by the tenant. The land in dispute along with other land and property situated at Hissar was acquired by the Improvement Trust, Hissar. Under S.36 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act (hereinafter to be called as the Act), notice was published in the Haryana Government Gazette on July 9, 1974 intending to acquire the land and the property. Afterwards, the Land Acquisition Collector accounced the award on April 26, 1976. He referred the dispute of apportionment of the amount of compensation between the landlord and the tenant under S.30 of the Land Acquisition Act to the Civil Court. The President Tribunal Improvement Trust, Hissar announced his judgment on September 29, 1987 allowing one-eighth of the compensation of the land measuring 307 square yards to the tenant and the remaining to the landlord. With respect to compensation of the value of structures raised by the tenant on 227 square yards, the compensation was allowed to the tenant. This is how the landlord and the tenant have challenged the award of the Tribunal in these two writ petitions inter alia making counter claims to the amount of compensation.

(2.) On an area of 227 square yards, Bishan Sarup tenant had raised some construction. Thus, for the superstructures existing on 227 square yards, compensation so determined is solely to be paid to him and not to the landlord. The Tribunal fixed a sum of Rs. 1,55,520/- on the method of capitalisation of annual rental value of total number of shops which were existing on 960 square yards of area. Adopting the same value, price for superstructure existing on 227 square yards would be Rs. 36,774 (i.e. Thus, out of the total amount of compensation fixed for the land as well as the shops, the tenant Bishan Sarup would be entitled to a sum of Rs. 36,774/- as compensation for superstructure raised by him on the tenanted land, with other benefits of compulsory acquisition under the Act.

(3.) The compensation for the land was separately fixed by the Collector, the Tribunal on reference and thereafter by the High Court. The Collector allowed compensation at the rate of Rs. 100, Rs. 60/- and Rs. 40/- per square yard for 'A', 'B' and 'C' zones whereas the Tribunal at the rate of Rs. 400/- and Rs. 350/- per square yard for two belts and the High Court at the rate of Rs. 900/- per square yard flat rate. The disputed land in these two writ petitions, as stated above, is 307 square yards which was let out to the tenant. The claim of the tenant is that he should be allowed compensation for his tenancy rights to the extent of one-third of the total amount of compensation fixed for the land. In support of this contention, reliance has been placed upon two decisions of this Court. In Sohan Lal v. State of Haryana, 1985 Pun LJ 126, a case relating to acquisition of agricultural land situated in Ambala City which was acquired by the Improvement Trust, such a question was raised. M.M. Punchhi, J. held that no material was placed in Court or seemingly before the Tribunal from which it could be determined that the share of the tenant in the compensation should have been less than one-third as awarded. While referring to the cases under the Punjab Land Security of Land Tenures Act where the tenant could purchase land of the big landowner under S.18 of the said Act, it was observed that in those cases proprietary interest of the landowners could not in any case be more than three-fourth of the price was distinguished that the same could not be the interest of the tenant in the case of simple landlord and tenant relationship. Punjab Wakf Board v. State of Haryana. 1988 Pun LJ 481, was also a case relating to agricultural land measuring 49 Acres, 1 Kanal, 15 Marlas situated in the revenue estate of Sirsa which was acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. The tenant was allowed one-fourth of the compensation. The District Judge had ignored the case of the tenants on the ground that they were lessees and not tenants. It was held that even a tenant-at-will was entitled to a share in compensation with the landowners of the acquired land regarding his tenancy rights. The Division Bench judgment in Piare Lal v. Col. H.H. Raja Sir Harinder Singh Brar, 1979 Pun LJ 474, and Bheari Lal v. Col. H.H. Raja Sir Harinder Singh Brar, 1979 Cur LJ (Civ) 526, were referred to wherein the tenant was allowed one-fourth of the compensation taking into view the provisions of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act. The Supreme Court in Amba Lal Mansukh Ram Joshi v. Addl. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Ahmedabad, AIR 1974 SC 591, may also be noticed where the amount of compensation was apportioned two-third and one-third in favour of the landowners and the tenant in case of permanent lease.