RFA No.162 of 1990 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT,AT CHANDIGARH. Decided on May 12,2008 Gugan and others -- Appellants. vs. Amar Singh and others -- Respondents. Present: Mr.V.K.Jain, Senior Advocate, with Mr.J.L.Malhotra,Advocate,for the appellants. None for the respondents. Rakesh Kumar Jain, J : This appeal is directed against the order dated October 16,1989, passed by the Additional District Judge, Gurgaon, whereby petition filed under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act'), has been dismissed and it has been held that Mangal son of Mitru to the extent of ½ share and Amar Singh, Hira Lal and Manohar sons of Shiv Lal son of Chitru and Surji daughter of Shiv Lal, shall be entitled to receive the remaining amount of ½ share in the compensation of the acquired land. RFA No.162 of 1990 2 A reference under Section 30 of the Act, was filed by the appellants alleging therein that they are absolute owners in possession of the land measuring 2 bighas 17 biswas falling in khasra No.175 situated in village Nainwal, Tehsil and District Gurgaon whereas the respondents and some other persons have been wrongly recorded in the revenue record as co-sharers in the said land. It was alleged that they had purchased the disputed land from all the co-sharers vide registered sale deed and mutation was also sanctioned in their favour, therefore, they are alone entitled to the amount of compensation. The reference was contested by the legal heirs of Shiv Lal son of Chitru and Mangal son of Mitru, alleging that the appellants are neither owners, nor in possession of the disputed land. It was further pleaded that Shiv Lal and Mangal had filed a suit before the Court of Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Gurgaon, for declaration of their occupancy rights which was decreed on November 27,1953 and appeal filed against that order was also dismissed on April 29,1955, therefore, they had become owners of the land having acquired occupancy rights. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:- 1. Which of the party is entitled to receive the compensation of the acquired land and to what extent ? OP Parties. 2. Relief: Both the parties led their evidence. It has been found by the Court below from the order Annexures R-4, R-6 and a copy of plaint Annexure R-1 that Shiv Lal son of Chitru and Mangal son of Mitru had filed a RFA No.162 of 1990 3 suit before the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Gurgaon, for declaration of occupancy rights, which was decreed on November 27,1953 which was upheld in appeal vide order dated April 29,1955. Mutation No.145 was sanctioned on May 13,1964 in the name of Shiv Lal son of Chitru and Mangal son of Mitru and they were shown in the column of ownership in the jamabandi for the years 1964-65. It was also found that since the respondents had already been declared owners in the year 1953, any purchase made by the appellant on September 17,1958 from Nanga and others was in consequential as the ownership rights had already vested in Shiv Lal son of Chitru and Mangal son of Mitru. Similarly, the Court below found the respondents to be in possession as in the column of cultivation of jamabandi, Ram Singh etc. were shown as co-sharers and relying upon the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Bhartu v. Ram Sarup, 1981 P.L.J. 204, it was held that possession of one co- sharer would be on his own behalf as well as on behalf of all other co- sharers unless and until joint holding is partitioned. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and have perused the entire record. No one has put in appearance on behalf of the respondents despite service. The appellants have failed to find fault with the reasoning adopted by the Court below in holding that the respondents are both owners as well as in possession of the land in dispute. The appellants have also failed to assail the finding of fact recorded by the Court RFA No.162 of 1990 4 below that the respondents have become owners by virtue of Section 3 (a) of the Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietory Rights) Act, 1952, vide order dated November 27,1953, which was upheld in appeal vide order dated April 29,1955. Mutation was also sanctioned on May 13,1964 vide No. 145 in their favour and they were shown in possession in the column of cultivation through co-sharers. Therefore, in my view, petition under Section 30 filed by the appellants herein has rightly been dismissed by the Court below. In view of my aforesaid discussion, the present appeal is totally devoid of any merit and the same is hereby dismissed but without any order as to costs. May 12,2008 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge