- (1.) The appeal is at the instance of persons, who claim that as villagers they were entitled to user of the village common lands and since the property acquired was shamlat deh, the compensation payable for such acquisition was liable to be apportioned amongst all persons who were interested in the property. The learned counsel would refer me to the definition of shamlat deh under Section 2(g) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 applicable to Haryana that includes the lands reserved for the benefit of village community. The expression of the benefit of village community or part thereof has been dealt with by a Full Bench of this Court in Gram Panchayat Sadhraur v. Baldev Singh and others, 1977 PunLJ 276 to contend that a benefit must include in its ambit not only the owners of the land of the Patti or Taraf concerned but also the village population of the village including the land owners. The Full Bench was holding that it could not be given restricted meaning as to confine the benefit only to the owners of the land and the benefit to a part of community must have reference to the benefit of those, who do not own land in the Patti concerned. The Full Bench was directing that the entries in revenue records must show that actually some benefit was derived by the village community or part thereof. The contention before me is that the proprietors of the land have not claimed the compensation and the Gram Panchayat which had no use in the property as shamlat deh acquisition also have no right of compensation. I could not find that any interest or user of the property must be taken as the right which the law contemplates for claiming compensation. A person that could have obtained the right to claim compensation shall be a person, who has a tangible proprietary interest in property by some means of transfer devolution or law of limitation. A licensee to a person or group of persons, who hold some right of user as common land, shall not come within the concept of interest as is contemplated under the Land Acquisition Act. The Full Bench decision ought to be understood only as enabling a person to have a right in so far as to retain the benefit of the land for common purposes. It ought not to be understood as even enabling a person to stake a proprietary interest over such land for compensation. Admittedly, the appellant was not entered as an owner of the property and the property acquired being a common land, a non proprietor who had but a right of user of the property as common land cannot claim any compensation.
(2.) The appeal is dismissed.;