RFA No. 558 of 1994 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: April 24, 2009 (1) R.F.A. No. 558 of 1994 (O&M) Nanak Chand .. Appellant Vs. Amrik Singh (deceased) through LRs and others .. Respondents (2) R.F.A. No. 3697 of 1993 (O&M) Amrik Singh (deceased) through LRs .. Appellant Vs. State of Punjab and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. M. S. Rakkar, Senior Advocate with Mr. P.S. Baath, Advocate for Nanak Chand- appellant. Mr. Arun Palli, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sunil Garg, Advocate for LRs of Amrik Singh. Rajesh Bindal J. This order shall dispose of above mentioned two appeals, as common questions of law and facts are involved. In a dispute under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act') with regard to apportionment of compensation for the acquired land, both the parties are before this Court. The facts have been noticed from R.F.A. No. 558 of 1994. Briefly, the facts of the case are that on a reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act') made by Special Land Acquisition Collector, Jullundur on an application made by Amrik Singh son of Mangal Singh in respect of land acquired for defence department, situated in the revenue estate of village Beer Kheri Gujran, Tehsil and District Patiala, the learned court below held that Amrik Singh was entitled to apportionment of compensation payable to the land owners-- Nanak Chand and Vinod Kumar. Learned counsel for the land owners submitted that predecessor-in- RFA No. 558 of 1994 [2] interest of respondent No. 1-Amrik Singh was not even in possession of the land to claim apportionment of compensation for the acquisition thereof. At the most, even if revenue record is to be seen, he can be considered to be Gair Marusi and being Gair Marusi also, he would not be entitled to any apportionment of compensation. There is no evidence on record to show that he had been paying any rent or Batai to the land owners. In the absence thereof, his status as tenant cannot be accepted entitling him to claim share in the amount of compensation for acquisition of land. The falseness of story put by him was evident from the fact that he was claiming the land to be Chahi, but he could not prove anything on record to show that there was any tubewell installed in the land, as even in his own evidence, the respondent had admitted that there was no tubewell on the acquired land and further the same was not even irrigated by any other means. Reliance was placed upon Tulsiram Tukaram v. K.L.Pande and others, AIR 1956 Nagpur 11; Rulhu Ram v. Than Singh and others, (1966) 68 PLR 866 and Amar Nath v. Haryana State through Collector, Karnal and others, 1990(1) Revenue Law Reporter 92. Another fact which was brought to the notice of the court was that the compensation for acquisition of land, as was awarded by the learned Reference Court, was reduced by this Court in appeal. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 1-Amrik Singh submitted that ample revenue record was produced on record by him in the form of jamabandis starting from 1958-59 to show that predecessor-in-interest of respondent No. 1 was in possession of the land since then. In jamabandi (Ex. O-1) for the year 1959-60, Nanak Chand and Vinod Kumar were shown to be owners of the land, whereas Mangal Singh son of Ralia Singh was shown as tenant on 1/3rd batai. In jamabandi (Ex. O-2) for the year 1963-64, Nanak Chand and Vinod Kumar were shown to be owners, whereas Mangal Singh was shown as tenant Gair Marusi on 1/3rd share basis. Similar is the position with regard to jamabandi (Ex. O-3) for the year 1969-70. In jamabandi (Ex. 0-4) for the year 1974-75, entries are similar but Amrik Singh was shown as tenant Gair Marusi. In jamabandi (Ex. 0-5) for the year 1979-80, Nanak Chand and Vinod Kumar were shown to be owners, whereas Amrik Singh was shown as tenant on 1/3rd share. Special reference was made to jamabandi for the year 1974-75, where on account of death of Mangal Singh, name of Amrik Singh was entered as the person in possession of the property as tenant on 1/3rd batai. Jamabandis further show that in the year 1984-85, a tubewell had been installed. That shows that respondent No. 1 had even made substantial improvements in the land which was initially shown as Barani. It was with his consistent efforts that the same was made cultivable. As regards the stand RFA No. 558 of 1994 [3] of the land owners that predecessor-in-interest of respondent No. 1 was not even in possession of the suit property, reference was made to pleadings of the land owners in CR No. 487 of 1993 filed by him against an interim order passed by the learned court below, whereby in paragraphs 3 and 5, it was admitted that predecessor-in-interest of respondent No. 1 was in fact tenant on the suit property and being tenant, he was entitled to share 25% of the compensation. Reliance was placed upon Behari Lal v. Col. His Highness Raja Sir Harinder Singh Brar, 1979 CLJ (Civil) 526 and Harbanslal and others v. Belu Jena and another, 1990 LACC 316 to submit that in fact the tenant in the present case is entitled to share 50% of the compensation on account of acquisition of land. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The facts of the case are not much in dispute. It is established on record by way of evidence led by the tenant that since 1958-59, his predecessor-in- interest was shown to be in possession of the land in dispute as tenant on 1/3rd Batai. 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 ever since 1958-59, in case the claim was that the land was barren and was not in possession of the tenant being an abandoned Bhatta land. In view of this factual position, oral evidence led by the land owners to claim that there was no tenant on the land cannot be believed. Once it is established that the respondent was in possession of the land as tenant on payment of 1/3rd Batai since 1958-59, he is certainly entitled to share the compensation with the land owner on account of acquisition of land. Considering that fact, in my opinion, 1/3rd would be reasonable percentage of compensation to which the respondent-tenant shall be entitled to share with the appellant on account of acquisition of land. The impugned award of the learned court below is modified to that extent. The appeals are disposed of in the manner indicated above. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge April 24 ,2009 mk