Lakhi Mal vs Manak Lal

G.C. Mital, J.—The land in dispute was acquired by the State Government for Faridabad complex and the compensation before the Land Acquisition Collector was claimed by two rival sets of claimants namely the landowners and the tenants. The Land Acquisition Collector could not decide this matter and referred the matter of apportionment of compensation to the learned District Court under section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The learned Additional District Judge, Gurgaon, by the impugned award, found that the appellants were perpetual lessees whereas the respondents were landowners and apportioned the compensation in the ratio of 75% : 25% between them. The perpetual lessees felt dissatisfied and have come to this Court in this appeal.

The respondentslandowners, when could not be served in the ordinary way, were served by publication in the newspaper. Hence the service is complete. In spite of that no appearance has been put in on behalf of the respondents. Accordingly I proceed to decide the appeal exparte.

Shri M.S. Jain has urged that the appellants were perpetual lessees of the respondents and subsequently acquired occupancy rights in the acquired land for which matter they moved the Revenue Court and the Revenue Court vide decree dated 29th July, 1976, declared Vinod Kumar, appellant No. 2 to be the occupancy tenant of the respondents. A copy of this decree has been placed on the record as Ex. R2. Similarly, Lakhi Mal appellant also was perpetual tenant of the respondents on the remaining land and he also filed suit before the Revenue Court for declaration of his title as occupancy tenant of the respondents. The Revenue Court declared Lakhi Mal to be the occupancy tenant against which order the respondents filed appeal and that appeal was also dismissed. A copy of the decree passed by the appellate Court has been placed on record as Ex. R. 3. Relying on the aforesaid two documents, it is urged that both the appellants became owners by virtue of section 3 of the Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act, 1952 and as such, were entitled to the entire compensation. I find merit in this contention.

The Court below after noticing the aforesaid documents was of the view that while the acquisition was made in the year 1973, the suits for declaration of occupancy rights were filed in the year 1974 and therefore, the appellants could not claim entire compensation because the rights of the parties on the date of acquisition had to be seen. This is a wholly erroneous reasoning adopted by the Court below. The compensation is to be paid to the person or persons entitled to the same and it would hardly matter as to on the date of acquisition who was owner of the acquired property. Reference in this connection be made to Dr. G.H. Grant v. The State of Bihar, AIR 1966 SC 237, which clearly supports the contention raised by the learned counsel. In that case, notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued on 8th June, 1949, award was given by the Collector on 25th March, 1952 and on May 22, 1952 the land which was subject matter of acquisition vested in the State, in consequence of a notification issued under section 3 of the Behar Land Reforms Act (No. 30 of 1950). On 15th October, 1952 the Government pleader submitted a petition before the Collector, claiming compensation money awarded to Dr. Grant (a claimant) as since the publication of the notification under the Behar Land Reforms Act it became payable to the State Government and therefore, the dispute between Dr. Grant and the State Government regarding the right to payment may be referred to Court under section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act. While the District Judge decided the matter against the State, the High Court came to the conclusion that the entire compensation was payable to the State and not Dr. Grant and ordered accordingly. The appeal of Dr. Grant before the Supreme Court failed. An identical plea raised by the landowners before the Court below was rejected by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case. Therefore, although the declaration was obtained by the perpetual lessees (appellants) after the date of notification, yet, in law, if they are entitled to the entire compensation, the same cannot be declined simply on the ground that they did not possess any occupancy rights on the date of the notification. It cannot be disputed that the moment occupancy tenants rights were declared, the appellants would be deemed to be the owners of the property by virtue of section 3 of the Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Acts, 1952. Hence, the decision of the Court below in this regard is set aside.

For the reasons recorded above, this appeal is allowed. The award of Court below is set aside and it is held that the appellants are entitled to the entire compensation according to the proposition of land held by them and that nothing is payable to the respondents.

No order as to costs.