KESHAV RAM VERMA Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the judgment dated 13.12.2000, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Shimla in land reference registered as case No. 169 -S/4 of 1993, the appellants (hereinafter referred to as the petitioners) have challenged the same on several grounds, however, mainly that irrespective of the civil litigation with respect to the title of the acquired land pending disposal in the civil Court, the reference petition should have been decided on merits by the Court below and that the liberty reserved to them to approach the Court again with their respective reference petitions for adjudication after the decision of the civil litigation, is hardly of any help to them because with the passage of time, the reference petitions will be barred by limitation.

(2.) RESPONDENT No. 4 Ramnik Kumar was the owner of acquired land entered in Khasra No. 99/1 measuring 1 biswa, Khasra No. 98 measuring 2 biswansi, 99/2, measuring 4 biswas and Khasra No. 100 measuring 1 biswa total 6 biswas 2 biswansi. He sold the acquired land partly to respondent No. 5 Anand Swaroop and partly to respondent No. 2 Pushpa Behl, as per the entries in the Jamabandi Ex. PW3/A, PW -3/B and PW -3/C. The land was acquired for construction of Khilini -Bihar road. Petitioner Keshav Ram and his wife Smt. Ram Pyari claimed themselves to be in possession of the acquired land in the capacity of tenant, however not acquired proprietary rights under the provisions of H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act. They, according to them, have acquired the title in the land in question automatically under the provisions of the Act. The petitioners therefore, claim themselves to be the owner -in -possession of the acquired land. The Land Acquisition Collector, however, in the award has held Shiv Narayan @ Sat Narayan and Kewal Krishan entitled to receive the compensation being owners of the acquired land. The petitioners claim the entire awarded amount on account of being in possession of the suit land and having acquired the title therein. They therefore, have filed the reference petitions under Sections 12, 13, 18 and 30 of the H.P. Land Acquisition Act for enhancement of the compensation and apportionment thereof.

(3.) 2nd respondent Pushpa Behl, has also filed a separate reference petition registered as case No. 165 -S/4 of 1993 for enhancement of the compensation. Learned Trial Court had clubbed both the reference petitions and decided the same vide common award, which is under challenge in the present appeal.