KANTA DEVI Vs. PRABH DAYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal under the provision of Jammu and Kashmir Requisition and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, has been preferred by the appellants, hereinafter referred to as the petitioners against order passed by the Additional District Judge, Jammu.. By means of impugned order in File No. Nil/LA on 17 -4 -96. It was held that the petitioners have no concern with the land, which was the subject matter of the case and thus they cannot claim any share in the rental compensation that was being received by the respondents to the exclusion of the former. This shows that the claim urged by the petitioners for claiming share has been negatived by the Collector below.

(2.) BRIEF facts giving rise to this case are that a big chunk of land measuring 265 kanals and 2 marl as, situated in villages Ramjan, Jandial and Agora tehsil Jammu, was acquired by the State Government under the provisions of the present appeal, controversy relates to the entitlement of compensation in respect of land measuring 13 kanals and 14 marlas situated in village Jandial out of the aforesaid area comprised in Khasra No. 5052. Compensation in the shape of rent as assessed by the government was paid to Gori Shanker and Krishna Devi Wd/o Chochan. Gori Shankar died during the pendency of the proceedings, so his LRs are respondents, 1 to 4; Whereas Hari Ram as well as Ram Saran original petitioners also died, petitioner -1 Kanta Devi is the widow of Ram Saran and petitioners, 2 to 9 are the LRs of Hari Ram.

(3.) IN the first instance, petitioners claim was for 1/2 share in the rental compensation by moving application before the Tehsildar as far back as in 1982, which application was rejected and it was held that petitioners and no claim over Khasra nos. 2052, since it had allotted to the respondents in a private partition and the petitioners had been allotted land comprised in Khasra No 2248 from which Khasra No, the respondents were completely excluded. This order of Tehsildar, Jammu dated 14 -3 -83 was confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner, Jammu on 23 -3 -85 in the appeal filed by the petitioners. But when both these orders were questioned before the Divisional Commissioner (Appeals), Jammu while allowing the appeal, it was held that it was not within the power of the Revenue Officer to hold as to which the parties is entitled for the apportionment of the compensation in question, which was awarded in favour of the respondents. It was further held that it was within the domain of District Judge as Arbitrator to decide the question of apportionment, such order was passed on 14 -1 -86 by the Director Land Records, who was having powers of Divisional Commissioner (Appeals).