Harnam Singh vs State of Haryana

N.K. Kapoor, J.

Harnam Singh and others have filed this appeal against the award of the Additional District Judge, Karnal dated December 6, 1980 whereby the reference made under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act has been declined.

Vide notification dated 5.2.1975 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, land measuring 65 Kanals 14 marlas situated in village Mehrane, Tehsil Panipat, District Karnal, was acquired by Government under the scheme for setting up a fertiliser plant at Panipat. This land was recorded under the ownership of Chhajju Ram son of Rikhi Ram and Baru & Dhanpat sons of Chhajju in equal shares. Present appellants were recorded as tenants at will in respect of the suit land. Land acquisition court awarded a sum of Rs. 76977.97 as compensation in respect of the land acquired.

Chhajju and others as well as the present appellants sought a reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act and the same was so referred by the Land Acquisition Collector for decision to the court of District Judge.

On the pleadings of the parties, District Judge, Karnal, framed the following issues :

Whether the claimants have not been properly compensated for their tenancy rights. If so, to what amount of compensation are the claimants entitled on that ground?

Whether the claimants have been deprived of standing crops and trees? If so, to what amount of compensation are the claimants entitled on that account?

Whether the claimants have been compelled to change their residence and place of business? If so, whether they are entitled to any compensation on that account and now much?

Whether the claimants have been deprived of their right to purchase the land. If so, to what amount of compensation are they entitled on that ground?

Relief.

Subsequently on 10th January, 1979, the Additional District Judge, Karnal, framed the following two additional issues:

1A. Whether at the time of relevant notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, Harnam Singh, Santokh Singh and Sewa Singh were occupying the land acquired as tenants and whether they were entitled to purchase the land under section 18 of the Security of Land Tenures Act, in the circumstances of the present case?

1B. If issue No. IA is proved in favour of Harnam Singh and others, whether in the circumstances of the present case owners are entitled to be given only that amount which could have been paid to them under the Security of Land Tenures Act and if so, what that amount is?

The learned Additional District Judge examined the matter under issues No. 1, 1A and 1B together and dismissed both the references with the observation that neither Harnam Singh and others nor Chhajju and others are entitled to any compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector. As noticed earlier, the appeal has been filed by Harnam Singh and otherstenants at will.

Brief facts of the case relevant for appreciating the controversy between the parties are as under.

It is admitted case of the parties that Chhajju Ram and his sons owned and held land exceeding the permissible limits in terms of the provisions of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 and a part of their holding was declared surplus under the Act. The land which was declared surplus in the hands of Chhajju Ram and his sons was allotted to Harnam Singh and others appellants as they were ordered to be evicted by the Assistant Collector I Grade in an eviction application filed by them. Precisely put, the appellants were evicted by order of Assistant Collector I Grade dated 9.6.1959 and were allotted land situate in village Mehrane and subjectmatter of the acquisition for which they have laid claim to receive compensation. The appellants, however, contend that besides 7 standard acres and 6 units of village Mehrane, they had been allotted land measuring 7 standard acres and 10 units in village Dehar, i.e., in all 15 standard acres pursuant to the orders of Assistant Collector I Grade. This contention is, however, being challenged by the counsel for Chhajju Ram and others, the erstwhile owners of the land. In any case, the present dispute only pertains to the land measuring 65 Kanals 14 marlas situate in village Mehrane. It is the case of the appellants that they were resettled on the surplus land of Chhajju Ram and his sons under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, which has now vested is the State of Haryana under the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 and this way they alone have the right to receive compensation of the acquired land.

Counsel for the contesting respondents, however, vehemently opposed this assertion of the appellants contending that the appellants had not become owners in terms of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 nor the same had been allotted to them under the Haryana Utilisation of Surplus Area Scheme, 1976. At best, the appellants had a right to be accommodated on an equivalent area by the State. According to the counsel, in fact the appellants had been allotted land measuring 72 kanals 1 marla situate in village Debar in lieu of their holdings in village Mehrane, vide order of allotment authority dated 19.12.1977. Since the alternate land had been allotted to the appellants in village Dehar, they are not entitled to claim the compensation amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector in respect of the land acquired. He further argued that even the State of Haryana had no right to deprive the owners of this compensation.

Learned Additional District Judge, however, came to the conclusion that the present appellants at best had a right to claim alternate allotment and so had no right to claim the compensation awarded by the Collector. Not only this, the learned Additional District Judge held that even the allotment of the land to the appellants does not clothe a person with the status of a tenant under the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972.

There is apparent fallacy in the reasoning of the learned Additional District Judge. Admittedly, the present appellants were tenants and were ordered to be evicted from the land as per the orders of the Assistant Collector I Grade dated 9.6.1959. According to section 12(3) of the Ceiling Act, the area declared surplus and tenants permissible area shall be deemed to have vested in the State Government with effect from the day of such declaration. Since the area has already been declared surplus under the Punjab Act, it is deemed to have vested in the State Government on 23rd December, 1972 in view of the Full Bench judgment of this court reported as 1977 Punjab Law Journal 230. Section 15 of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 deals with the disposal of the surplus area. As per section 15(2)(ii) of the Act, a tenant who was allotted and given possession of the land in the surplus area by the State Government under the Punjab Law or the Pepsu Law, is to be allotted land to the extent of area so allotted to him. Section 16 deals with principles for payment of amount in respect of land acquired or vested under section 12. Haryana Utilisation of Surplus Area Scheme 1976, also envisages the preparation of list of various categories of persons who were entitled to allotment of the surplus land. As per paragraph 4 of the scheme, 1976, the appellants come within the ambit of category ''B''. Examined in the light of these provisions, the conclusion of the learned Additional District Judge that the prior allotment did not confer the status of a tenant upon the appellants is wholly erroneous. In fact the appellants were allotted and put in possession of area declared surplus in the hands of Chhajju Ram and his sons under the Punjab Act and so had a right to become its owners by paying instalments in terms of section 16 of the Ceiling Act.

However, in the instant case, before the land could be allotted under the Utilisation of Surplus Area Scheme, 1976, the same had been acquired by the State vide notification dated 5.2.1975 which has consequently displaced the appellants.

Them is a serious contest between the parties as to whether the land situate in village Dehar has been allotted in lieu of the land acquired or is by way of additional allotment as contended by the appellants. The impugned judgment is silent with regard to this controversy. The determination of this fact has indeed a material beating upon the related controversy, i.e. as to whether the appellantsChhajju Ram and his sonscontesting respondentsare entitled to receive the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector or the present appellants or none of these persons. I accordingly accept this appeal, set aside the award of the Additional District Judge, Karnal, dated December 6, 1980 and remand the case for a fresh decision in the light of observations made above. The court will grant full opportunity to the parties to lead evidence in support of their respective contentions. The court will also grant opportunity to the State as it contests the claim of either of the parties to receive this compensation. The parties are directed to appear before the Additional District Judge, Karnal on 24.11.1992. No order as to costs.