Lachhman Dass and others vs The State of Punjab and others

Jai Singh Sekhon, J.—The Punjab State sought to acquire 50 Kanals 5 Marlas of land from the Revenue Estate of village Brahman Majra for public purposes at public expenses namely for the construction of food-grains godowns at Sirhind on behalf of the Marketing Federation, vide notification published on February 7, 1969 u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Land Acquisition Collector awarded compensation of the disputed land measuring 11 Kanals 12 Marlas forming part of Khasra No. 117/2 at Rs. 88,124.02 P. But, this compensation was not released in favour of the claimants as in the revenue record its ownership was reflected as Shamlat deh and different persons were mentioned as its cultivators. Accordingly, a reference u/s 30 of the said Act was made to the District Judge, Patiala. The learned Additional District Judge Patiala vide his impugned award dated March 5, 1979 concluded that the Municipal Committee had no right to share any compensation of this land and that the compensation shall be shared by the co-sharers of the villages on the basis of the entries in the revenue record. It was further held that the land being much valuable than the other Shamilat deh land, the persons in possession thereof shall not be entitled to have the entire compensation but will have to share the compensation with other co sharers in accordance with their proprietary rights in the land of this village. Being aggrieved against the award of the learned Additional District Judge, the appellants have come up in appeal.

The sole grouse of Mr. M.L. Sarin, learned counsel for the appellants pertains to the factum that the disputed land being in possession of the appellants for more than 50 years, they are entitled to get its compensation especially when it does not exceed their respective shares in the Shamilat deh being proprietors of the land in this village Mr. K.S. Grewal, learned counsel for the Municipal Committee on the other hand conceded that it has no concern with the acquired land in view of dismissal of its R.F.A. No. (sic)/79 by Hon''ble Mr. Justice D.S Tewatia on 14.5.1979 in limine. The learned counsel for the other co-sharers on the other hand supported the findings of the learned Additional District Judge on the basis of entries in the Wajbul Arz.

The perusal of Exhibit R-1 leaves no doubt that the persons in possession of the Shamilat deh land shall not be given any preferential rights, during the partition proceedings of the same. It is further clarified that such persons shall be entitled to remove the construction etc. existing on the common land. The Financial Commissioner Punjab in Arjan Singh etc. v. Jangir Singh and others 1971 P.L.J. 912, has also held that possession alone cannot be the determining factor during the partition proceedings of the Shamilat Deh land. It was further held that where a portion of the Shamilat Deh land is more valuable and can be used for other than agricultural purposes then the entire co-sharers in the Shamilat deh land would be entitled to share such land according to their respective rights. In the case in hand also the entire land is more valuable being located along with metalled road than the rest of the Shamilat deh land. In these circumstances, there is no option but to conclude that the appellants on the basis of their possession only shall not be entitled to the entire compensation of the acquired land even though it may not be exceeding their respective shares in the Shamilat deh.

Merely because the appellants have been in possession of this land for the last more than 50 years, it cannot be said that they had become owners thereof by adverse possession as being co-sharers their possession shall not be considered hostile or against the interest of other co-sharers in the Shamilat deh land. No doubt the appellants were deprived of the user of this land due to its acquisition, but all the same the only remedy for that would be resort to partition proceedings of the remaining Shamilat deh land.

For the foregoing reasons, this appeal is dismissed but without any orders as to costs.