POSSESSION OF PLOT NO.1768 WAS TAKEN FROM THE RESPONDENT.THEREFORE, ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL ON THE RECORD, THE LOWER COURT RIGHTLY CONCLUDED THAT THE LAND IN QUESTION WAS ABADI LAND ON THE DATE OF VESTING AND AS A MATTER OF FACT, TILL ABOUT THE YEAR 1958 OR 1959 AND, THEREFORE, IT COULD NOT HAVE VESTED IN THE GRAM SAMAJ. - (1.) THIS appeal arises out of the judgment dated 27-11-1965 of the Civil Judge Dehradun, in a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (here inafter referred to as the Act).
(2.) THE relevant facts are that an area measuring 53.64 acres has been acquired by the State Government to provide land for the construction of a power channel and residential quarters etc., of the Yamuna Kydel Scheme. This area comprises a number of plots including plot No. 1768 measuring.30 acre. The subject-matter of the reference under Section 18 giving rise to this appeal is the said plot No. 1768 measuring.30 acre and the trees standing thereon. The notification under Section 4 of the Act was published on the 19th of No vember, 1960 and the notification under Sec tion 6 was notified on the 31st of December, 1960. The notice under Section 9 of the Act inviting objections, if any, was notified on the 28th of March, 1961. Thereafter the ob jector- respondent filed his objections within the period provided by law. It is also appa rent that the Land Acquisition Officer did not award any compensation to the respondent in respect of plot No. 1768 and the trees stand ing thereon because, according to the Land Acquisition Officer, the plot was Banjar land on the date of vesting under the U. P. Zamin-dari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (Act No. I of 1951) and, therefore, vested in the Gram Samaj and the respondent had no inte rest therein. The appellants i.e., the Collec tor and the Deputy Land Acquisition Officer also took the plea that the trees standing in plot No. 1768 had been cut away by the respondent before the Collector took posses sion of the same.
(3.) THE first contention put forward on behalf of the appellants was that the lower court erred in recording a finding that plot No. 1768 was abadi land on the date of vesting or in other words, in the year 1359 F. and, therefore, it could not have vested in the Gram Samaj. After considering the evi dence on the record and the reasons given by the court below, I see no force in this contention. As has been pointed out in the impugned judgment, the appellants did not file any Khasra to show that during 1359 F or during any year prior to it the plot in question was Banjar land. The objector-res pondent, besides examining himself, examin ed two independent witnesses, namely P. W. 1. Brahma Dutt. a former Chairman of the Choharpur Town Area Committee and P. W. 2 Pyare Lal who supported the respondent and stated that the respondent had his house in plot No. 1768 till about 1959 or so. As has been pointed out, there are some minor contradictions which obviously were due to lapse of memory. The evidence adduced by the appellants on the other hand, consisted of statements made by interested witnesses and, as already pointed out, no relevant docu mentary evidence was produced. It has also been rightly pointed out that if the land had vested in the Gram Samaj, it should not have been in possession of the respondent. The lower court has rightly attached consider able importance to the fact that admittedly;