- (1.) This judgment of mine would dispose of R.F.A. No. 146 of 1980 Bishamber v. State of Haryana and R.F.A. No. 82 of 1980 Mohan Lal v. State of Haryana because the points involved in both the appeals are similar and to this aspect of the matter both the counsel are agreed that both these appeals can be disposed of together by a common judgment. Rather, both the counsel are further agreed that the facts of the case for deciding both the appeals may be taken from the judgment rendered by the learned Additional District Judge in the case of Bishambar v. State of Haryana. This being the conceded position, I would be picking up the facts of the case therefrom.
(2.) The Haryana Government by issuance of a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') on 16.2.1978, acquired land measuring 144.54 acres. The land is situated in village Bhulwana, Tehsil Palwal. Out of the acquired land, some land belongs to the appellant before this Court. The Land Acquisition Collector determined the market value of the acquired land and the appellants were disbursed the amount of compensation. The respondent filed a claim petition under section 30 of the Act which was forwarded by the Land Acquisition Collector to the Court. The Additional District Judge by his impugned judgment has allowed the application of the respondents. Against the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge, the landowner has preferred the present appeal.
(3.) The case of the landowners before the learned Additional District Judge was that the respondents were not occupancy tenants and that they were not entitled to the amount in question which was rightly disbursed in favour of the appellant. On the other hand, the case of the respondents before the learned Additional District Judge was that they were occupancy tenants on the land from the time of their fore-fathers and, therefore, they were entitled to the disbursement of the entire amount of compensation. The Additional District Judge after referring to the entire evidence on the record of the case, came to the conclusion that the respondents are entitled to be declared as occupancy tenants and they were entitled to the compensation amount. For arriving at the aforesaid finding, the learned Additional District Judge has placed reliance upon several jamabandis on the record of the case by which it has been proved that their fore-fathers were in possession of the disputed land. In the column of rent the entry is 'Bashera Maalkhan Bawaja Kasht Darina'. This entry figures in favour of the respondents' fore-fathers in the Jamabandi for the year 1940-41 which was repeated in several other jamabandis and khasra girdawaris of later period. The learned Additional District Judge, in his ultimate conclusion found that the respondents were in possession of the disputed land for the last more than 30 years, without payment of any rent to the landowners and that they were only paying land revenue and cess upto to the date of acquisition. The evidence brought by the respondents squarely brings their case within the meaning and ambit of Section 5(2) of the Punjab Tenancy Act which reads as under :- "S. 5(2). If a tenant proves that he has continuously occupied the land for 30 years and paid no rent therefor beyond the amount of land revenue thereof and the rates and cesses for the time being chargeable thereon, it may be presumed that he has fulfilled the conditions of clause (a) of Sub-section (1)". A plain reading of the above provisions of the Act clearly shows that if a particular tenant proves that he had continuously been occupying a particular piece of land for 30 years and paid no rent beyond the amount of land revenue which was chargeable, a presumption would arise that such a tenant fulfills the conditions of clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 5 of the Act. Since the Jamabandis prove the existence of factual position as contemplated by the law for conferring occupancy rights upon the respondents & since there is a presumption of truth attached to the Jamabandis which has not been rebutted in the instant case, no infirmity can be found with the findings arrived at by the learned Additional District Judge that the respondents have proved themselves to be occupancy tenants. The findings of the learned Additional District Judge that the respondents are entitled to be declared occupancy tenants is, therefore, correct.;