R. F. A No. 2364 of 1989 1 In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh R. F. A No. 2364 of 1989 (O&M) Date of decision : 5.11.2008 Smt. Rukmani Devi ..... Appellant vs Shri Ajmer Singh and others ..... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: None. Rajesh Bindal J. The landowner is in appeal before this court against the award of the learned court below whereby in a reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act'), the respondents were granted apportionment of 1/3rd share in the total amount of compensation on account of their being tenants on the acquired land. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the State of Haryana vide notification issued under Section 4 of the Act, acquired land situated in revenue estate of Village Ratgal (Kurukshetra). The Land Acquisition Collector rendered his award on 7.5.1985. The tenants/respondents filed their application for apportionment of compensation under Section 30 of the Act, which was referred to the learned court below for consideration. The respondents placed on record material to show that they were tenants on the land since 1975-76. Initially, they were paying Rs. 3,000/- per annum as lease money. However, after the installation of tubewell with the permission of the landowner in the year 1979, the lease money was enhanced to Rs. 4,000/- per annum. Even documentary evidence Ex. P-1 to P-12 were also produced in support of the oral statements. Ex. P-13, copy of jamabandi for the year 1982-83 was produced showing the respondents as tenants on payment of Rs. 4,000/- per annum. Khasra girdawari for the subsequent period showing their possession were also produced. On the basis of this material evidence on record, it was opined by the learned Reference court that the respondents were tenants on the acquired land and the claim set up by the appellant that the respondents had R. F. A No. 2364 of 1989 2 merely been permitted to cultivate the land, was found to be false. After finding the status of the respondents to be of tenants on the land, the learned court below directed apportionment of the compensation amongst the tenants and the landowner in the ratio of 1/3rd and 2/3rd, respectively, keeping in view the law laid down by this court in Sohan Lal vs The State of Haryana and others 1985 P.L.J. 126. Prima-facie I do not find any illegality in the impugned award of the learned court below. However, as the learned counsel for the appellant is not available, the appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution. 5.11.2008 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge