- (1.) 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 Singh-owner was held entitled to have compensation for the entire land.
(2.) 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."
(3.) 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 PunLJ 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 pre-suppose 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.";