Zile Singh vs Balbir Singh

A.L. Bahri, J.

This appeal has been filed by Zile Singh and others against the judgement of the District Judge, Gurgaon, dated April 15,1987, whereby he decided reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act holding Balbir Singh respondent to be entitled to the compensation fixed for the acquired land.

The land in dispute is measuring 6 Kanals comprising in Khasra Number 38/5/1 of Patti Hukmi, village Kadipur, of District Gurgaon. The disputed land along with other land was acquired. Zile Singh and others claim that they had obtained rights of occupancy tenancy therein and thus entitled to the amount of compensation whereas Balbir Singh, owner of the land, refuted the claim of Zile Singh and others and made a claim to the entire amount of compensation for the acquired land. This is how the matter was referred by the Collector, Land Acquisition, to the District Judge, Gurgaon. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:

1) Which of the parties is entitled to receive compensation in terms of section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ?

2) Relief.

As already stated above, Balbir Singhowner was held entitled to have compensation for the entire land.

Sections 5 and 6 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 (hereinafter called ''the Act'') provide for acquiring occupancy tenancy. At the outset it may be stated that the case of the appellants is not covered by either of these Sections. Reliance is placed on Section 8 of the Act for acquiring occupancy tenancy by the appellants. Section 8 and 9 read as under:

"8. Establishment of right of occupancy on grounds others than those expressly stated in Act:Nothing in the foregoing section of this Chapter shall preclude any person from establishing a right of occupancy on any ground other than the grounds specified in those sections.

"9. Right of occupancy not to be acquired by mere lapse of time: No tenant shall acquire a right of occupancy by mere lapse of time."

A perusal of the aforesaid provision would show that rights of occupancy tenancy can be acquired apart from the grounds mentioned in Sections 5 & 6 of Act. These provisions were under consideration of this Court in Muni Ram and others v. Phullia and Lalu, 1974 P.L.J. 369, and the propositions flowing therefrom were stated as under:

"1) The intention of the landlord not to eject the tenant for ever should be seen as to the time of the inception of the tenancy. Any subsequent intention cannot ordinarily have any effect on the nature of the agreement which came into existence at the time of the commencement of the tenancy.

2) Mere length of possession does not entitle a tenant to acquire occupancy rights in the land in his possession as a tenant.

3) The intention behind the wide scope left by Section 8 of the Punjab Tenancy Act is:

(a) not to restrict the tenant in any way from establishing his right of occupancy; and

(b) to presuppose the existence of a large set of conditions in which occupancy rights can arise outside the scope of sections 5 and 6 of the Punjab Tenancy Act.

"4) In case where circumstances exist from which an inference of an implied promise not to eject a tenant forever can be raised, the burden of rebutting the said presumption must lie on the landlord, and if the landlord does not discharge that burden, effect should be given to the presumption and the tenant''s claim to the occupancy tenancy should be accepted.

5) A very strong presumption of the implied promise not to eject a tenant, and therefore, of the existence of an occupancy tenancy in favour of such a tenant can be raised:

(a) Where a tenancy has lasted for many years during which there has been a rise in prices of agricultural produce and it is proved that no effort was made by the landlord to enhance the rent; and

(b) Where despite the existence of a stray entry which is inconsistent with the preceding and the subsequent entries over a large number of years, circumstances show that there was no intention to raise the rent or to recover anything for the owner from the tenant."

The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is based on the aforesaid decision and is that the appellants are in possession of the land in dispute for a number of years on payment of only lagan (land revenue) and the value of the produce derived therefrom has enormously increased; the landowners at no stage either took steps to increase the rent or to eject the tenant. Thus, according to the counsel, it would be a case of implied consent not to eject the tenant and therefore, the appellants have acquired occupancy rights in the tenancy. The respondent appeared in person and argued that the appellants have failed to establish that they were on the land in dispute as tenants for a long time. Their forefathers were no in possession of the suit land. The revenue records produced by the appellants do not establish that the appellants are in possession of the suit land for the last many years though it is admitted that the rent remained Rs. 12/which was lagan and no steps were taken to increase the same or to eject the tenant by the landowner. In order to appreciate the arguments addressed, it is necessary to refer to the plea taken up in the application filed by Zile Singh and others and the evidence produced. In the claim petition Zile Singh and others did state that the land was in possession and occupation of their forefathers on lagan of Rs. 12/. It was further stated that they had acquired rights of occupancy. Oral evidence produced by the appellants consists of statement of PW 2 Tek Chand and PW 2 Har Chand. Tek Chand did not state that his father Jot Ram was earlier tenant and after his death his sons the appellants are the tenants. Jot Ram is stated to have died on April 3, 1985, and before him Jawahara, his father used to cultivate the land in 193940. He did not make any clear statement that at the time of induction of the tenants there was any agreement not to eject the tenants. However, in crossexamination he admitted that he was not present at the time of induction of the tenant. PW 2 Har Chand proved the relationship of the appellants with Jot Ram. On the other hand RW 1 Balbir Singh supported his case and stated that Jot Ram was inducted as a tenant by him on payment of Rs. 12/ on the land in dispute for some time. No promise was made to him not to eject him from the land in dispute. He denied the suggestion that Jot Ram was cultivating the land in 193940. According to him it was in 1957 that Jot Ram started cultivating the land in dispute. The decision of the cases depends upon the perusal of the revenue records and oral evidence cannot be of much assistance. Exhibit P.4 is the copy of jamabandi for the year 196465 in respect of present Khasra No. 38/5/1, measuring 6 Kanals. Balbir Singh is recorded as the owner and Jot Ram Ghair Morusi. Chakota is mentioned as lagan Rs. 12/.Old Khasra Numbers are also given in this jamabandi which were prior to consolidation i.e. 291 and 292. Subsequent jamabandi for the year 196768 is Exhibit P.5, for the year 197273 is Exhibit P. 6, for the year 197778 is Exhibit P.7, and for the year 198283 is Exhibit P.8. Entries in these jamabandi are the same as in Exhibit P.4 in respect of the land comprising Khasra Number 38/5/1. The appellants placed reliance on Jamabandi Exhibit P.2 for the year 193940. The owners are shown as Kunj Behari Lal, 1/2, mortgagor, Muni Lal, onehalf, Ramji Lal mortgagee. In the column of cultivation the entry is as under :

"Hissedar Khudkasht'' Ramji Lal Murthan Nisaf Muni Lal Hissedar Marfat Jawahara Wald Shad Ghir Morusi Nisaf.

The land is described in Khasra Numbrs with old Khasra Numbers as under:

Present Khasra Nos.

Old Khasra Numbers

194

144

190

147

198

171

200

171

218

190

220

914/191

227

194, 197, 198

234

200

Jamabandi for the year 194647 is Exhibit P.3. In the column of ownership Balbir Singh and several others sons of Kunj Behari Lal are recorded as owners in half and Muni Lal in half. In the column of cultivation Muni Lal co owner is shown through Sanjha Ram, Chander, Jot Ram, Bhagwan Singh sons of Jawahara in equal shares as ghair morusian. The Khasra Numbers mentioned 39Min; 224, 29 and 334. It is not made clear as to how Jawahara was in fact in possession of the land which ultimately came to be comprised of Khasra No. 291 and 292, new Khasra Numbers of which was 38/5/1 as recorded in Jamabandi for the year 196465 Exhibit P.4. Thus, the appellant have utterly failed to prove that they or their predecessorsininterest were in possession of the land in dispute as Ghair Morusi since 193940. From the revenue records Exhibit P.4 to P.8 it is only established that Jot Ram was in possession of the suit land since 196465. There is no evidence that in 196465 when Jot Ram and Balbir Singh that Jot Ram will not be ejected therefrom. In view of Section 9 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, no tenant can acquire a right of tenancy by mere lapse of time. That being the position the appellants cannot be held to be occupancy tenants at the time the land was acquired.

In order to acquire occupancy rights appellants were required to move the revenue authorities for obtaining such a declaration as was the case in Muni Ram''s case (supra). Even on facts of that case it was held that the tenant had not acquire the occupancy rights. Thus the position remains that since 196465 Jot Ram remained in possession as a tenant only on payment of Rs.12/ lagan but there was no agreement nor to eject him therefrom and no presumption in the facts and circumstances stated can be drawn that there was implied agreement between the parties not to eject Jot Ram from the land in dispute. The Additional District Judge rightly held that Balbir Singh who is the owner of the land in dispute, is entitled to the compensation fixed for the same. The finding of the Additional District Judge, in this respect is affirmed.

For the reasons record above, this appeal is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.