R.F.A. No. 2415 of 1986 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.F.A. No. 2415 of 1986 Date of decision: September 09 , 2008 Net Ram ..Appellant v. State of Haryana and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Nilesh Bhardwaj, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. B.S. Rana, Additional Advocate General, Haryana with Mr. Rajiv Kawatra, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for respondent No.1. Mr. C. B. Goel, Advocate for the remaining respondents. Rajesh Bindal J. Challenge in the present appeal is to the award of the learned Court below whereby the claim set up by the appellant for apportionment of compensation on account of acquisition of land was dismissed. Briefly, the facts are that on account of acquisition of land by the State, the appellant also led his claim for apportionment of compensation on the ground that he was in occupation of the land in question as an occupancy tenant and in the alternative, he claimed himself to be a non-occupancy tenant, whereas the respondents' stand was that the appellant was merely a licensee and as such did not have any right in the property and accordingly was not entitled to apportionment of compensation. On the basis of evidence, documentary as well as oral, it could not be proved by the appellant that he was an occupancy tenant. In the jamabandis for the years 1966-67, 1971-72, 1976-77 and 1981-822 (Ex. R. 4 to R.7), the entry in column No. 9 was “Bila Lagan Bawaje Bhai Bandi”, which did not reflect that the appellant was a tenant in the property what to talk of occupancy tenant. Even in the khasra girdawaris from 1982 onwards also, the same entry was reflected. The appellant in fact, was given the R.F.A. No. 2415 of 1986 [2] possession of the land only for cultivation for the reason that owners of the property were ladies and the appellant was their relative, as is reflected from the statement of the appellant himself where he admitted that ancestors of the private respondents were his collateral in the third degree. Even respondent-Murti, while appearing as D.W.1, also stated that the appellant was her uncle and keeping in view the poor financial condition at the relevant time, he was permitted to cultivate the land. Once the appellant has not been able to prove his status as a tenant in the property and merely being a licensee, he cannot be held entitled to apportionment of compensation on account of acquisition of land in his possession. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge September 09 , 2008 mk