R. F. A No. 534 of 1986 1 In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh RFA No. 534 of 1986 (O&M) Date of decision : 22.9.2010. Pir Chand ..... Appellant vs Haryana State and others ... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Sudhir Mittal, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Ashish Gupta, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. Rajesh Bindal J. The land owner has approached this court through the present appeal against the order of the court below. Briefly, the facts are that vide notification dated 13.12.1977, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act'), the State of Haryana acquired land situated in Hadbast No. 146, in the area of Tehsil and District Hisar, for construction of Water-works in the urban Estate of Hisar. The same was followed by notification dated 22.7.1980 issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector vide award dated 4.5.1982 assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 6/- per square yard for block-A and ` 4/- for the block -B. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the landowner filed objections whereas tenant Jora Singh filed petition claiming apportionment of compensation. On reference under Sections 18 and 30 of the Act, the learned court below vide award dated 3.12.1985, determined the market value of the acquired land @ ` 6/- per square yard and also held respondent no. 2 entitled for 1/3rd of the compensation. It is against this award, the landowner has filed the present appeal. In so far as determination of market value of the acquired land is concerned, it is not disputed by the learned counsel for the parties that this court in RFA No. 1853 of 1985 Partap Singh and others vs State of Haryana and others, decided on 20.8.2004, had upheld the award of the learned court below determining the market of the land acquired vide notification dated 13.12.1977. Accordingly, no case for further enhancement is made out. R. F. A No. 534 of 1986 2 As far as apportionment of compensation is concerned, the learned court below had awarded 1/3rd of the compensation to the tenant. The facts of the case are not much in dispute. It is established on record by way of evidence led by the tenant that he was in possession of the land for the last 30 years as gair marusi. There is presumption of truth with the revenue record, though rebuttable, but it is an undisputed fact that the land owners in the present case did not take any step to get the jamabandis corrected. In view of this factual position, oral evidence led by the land owner to claim that he was not the tenant on the land cannot be believed. Once it is established that respondent no. 2 was in possession of the land as tenant, he is certainly entitled to share the compensation with the land owner on account of acquisition of land. No fault can be found with the award of the learned court below directing for sharing of compensation in the ratio of 1/3: 2/3 between the tenant and the landowner, respectively. In view of the above, no case for interference is made out. The appeal is dismissed. 22.9.2010 (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge