- (1.) VIDE notification dated 21.3.1991 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('the Act' for short), 426.48 acres of land at Hisar was sought to be acquired for public purposes i.e. for development and utilisation of land for residential purposes for sectors 16 and part of sectors 11,13,15 and 17, Hisar. Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 18.3.1992. Land Acquisition Collector, vide award dated 16.3.1994 awarded compensation to the land owners. Land owners sought references under Section 18/ 30 of the Act for enhancement of compensation and its apportionment.
(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record available on the file carefully.
(3.) SO far as the enhancement of compensation is concerned, it has been stated by the counsel for the appellants as well as the State counsel that this appeal be disposed of in terms of decision given by this Court in RFA No.3271 of 1998 decided on 23.9.1999 Accordingly, so far as determination of compensation is concerned, this appeal is disposed of in terms of decision given by this Court in RFA No.3271 of 1998 decided on 23.9.1999. With regard to apportionment of amount of compensation, learned Additional District Judge has observed as under: - "32 In view of my findings on the above issues, the claim petition under Section 30 of the Act filed by Chhabil Dass seeking apportionment of compensation amount in respect of the land comprised in khasra No. 4734 -min (3 -6) as owned by Punjab Wakf Board stands dismissed. Similarly the petition of Budh Ram qua apportionment of land measuring (0 -14) presently comprised in Khasra No.4742 (old khasra No.3816) stands dismissed as he was never recorded to be in cultivating possession over this land at any stage of time and in any capacity whatsoever. However, the reference petition of Budh Ram under section 30 of the Act on account of his having been recorded to be in joint cultivating possession, in equal shares, with one Roopa s/o Hardeva over the lands previously comprised in Khasra Nos. 3807/2 (2 -16) , 3808/1(2 -0) under Punjab Wakf Board over khasra Number 3809/2(2 -12), 3810/2 (2 -19), 3812 (0 -17), 3813 (8 -11) and 3818 (7 -2) under the Union of India and presently comprised in Khasra Nos.4733, 4734, 4735, 4736, 4738, 4739 and 4744 respectively stands accepted. However, in t:he light of observations in the case titled Mangat Ram etc. vs. State of Haryana and others, 1996 PunLJ 401 and Milkhi Ram Vs. Financial Commissioner,1980 PunLJ 636 he would be entitled to compensation to the extent of fifty percent (50 %) out of 3/4th share in the aforesaid lands whereas the Punjab Wakf Board would be entitled to compensation to the extent of remaining one fourth (l/4th) share in the land measuring (2 -16) previously comprised in khasra No. 3807/2 (new khasra No.4733) and the land measuring 2 kanals 0 marla previously comprised in khasra No.3808/1 (new khasra No.4734) and the Union of India through Department of Rehabilitation would be simultaneously entitled to one fourth (1/4th) share in the remaining land comprised in khasra Nos.3809/2 (new khasra No.4735), 3810/2 (new khasra No.4736), 3812 (new khasra No.4738, 3813 (new Khasra No.4739) and 3818 (new Khara No.4744.) 33. The above direction qua sharing of 3/4th amount of compensation by Budh Ram with Roopa, in equal shares, is being issued in the light of the fact that in the jamabandis Ex.P -32, Ex.P -33 and Ex.P -44 for the years 1940 -41, 1945 -46 and 1957 -58 respectively, the above named Roopa s/o Hardeva was recorded as being in joint cultivating possession of the land now under acquisition. Observations in the case titled Jit Singh and another vs. Chaman Singh and others, 1986 PunLJ 246 cited on behalf of Budh Ram in support of the contention that he continues to be a tenant over the entire tenancy is of no help to him in the matter because it is not his case that Roopa s/o Hardeva had ever relinquished or abandoned his tenancy rights in his favour and rather the revenue record adverted to above establishes continuous possession of Roopa alongwith Budh Ram throughout. Even the judgment Ex.P -2, whereby Budh Ram had assigned high rights qua tenancy over the land? under acquisition in favour of Phula and Jogi Ram cannot be taken into consideration for ignoring the rights of Roopa above named because the said Roopa was not impleaded therein and in fact he continued to be recorded in cultivating possession in equal shares, with Budh Ram, over the acquired land as per khasra girdawaris Ex.P -41 and Ex.P -42 pertaining to the years 1984 to 1994. In fact , the assignment of tenancy rjghts by Budh Ram through judgement Ex.P -2 would have been a ground for termination of his tenancy by the custodian in view of the proviso (a) to Section 12 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 .It will not be out of place to highlight in this context 'that the above named Budh Ram is survived by five sons namely Harphool (PW -1), Rama Nand, Banwari, Chander Bhan and Mam Chand besides two daughters named Meshar and Savitri as also his widow named Parvati but none of them were impleaded as LRs in the suit filed by Phula s/o Mahipal and Jogi Ram s/o Bharat culminating in the judgemnt Ex.P -2 and which above named persons have now in any case vide judgment Ex.R -10 of the Commissioner, Hisar read with the judgment Ex.R -11 of the Financial Commissioner, Haryana dated 17.4.1995 and 6.11.1997 respectively been recorded to be impleaded as LRs of the above named Budh Ram in the petition filed by him seeking declaration of his being an occupancy tenant on the acquired land." Since in the present case, Budh Ram and Roopa Ram were recorded to be in joint cultivating possession of the land in question, learned Additional District Judge rightly held that the compensation amount qua their shares was liable to be shared equally by Budh Ram and Roopa Ram. The said finding of the trial Court is based on evidence on record and calls for no interference. Appeal stands disposed of accordingly.;