RFA No.3333 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RFA No.3333 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: July 8, 2011 Bishamber .....Appellant v. Panchayat Deh .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Sachin Mittal, Advocate for the appellant. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present appeal has been filed against judgment dated 16.12.2010, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Gurgaon, vide which reference petition filed under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter to be referred as the `Act') by present appellant-petitioner was dismissed and the Gram Panchayat of village Bas Lambi, Tehsil and District Gurgaon was held entitled to receive the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector regarding the acquired land. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned judgment passed by learned Additional District Judge, Gurgaon. Admittedly Gram Panchayat of village Bas Lambi, Tehsil and District Gurgaon, is owner of the land in dispute, which was acquired by the Government vide notification No.32/36/2005-41BI dated 27.9.2005 issued under Section 4 of the Act followed by subsequent notification No.32/36/2005-41BI dated 12/13.7.2006. Present appellant has claimed RFA No.3333 of 2011 (O&M) -2- compensation on the ground that he has been continuing in cultivating possession the said land as a tenant at will of the Gram Panchayat of village Bas Lambi. Hence, reference under Section 30 of the Act was sent to learned Additional District Judtge, Gurgaon, for deciding the said point for apportionment of the compensation of the acquired land. However though sufficient opportunities were given to present appellant by learned Additional District Judge, Gurgaon, to adduce evidence, no evidence was adduced by him despite last opportunity. Hence, learned Reference Court was having no alternative but to close the evidence of the appellant- petitioner and to dismiss the objection taken by him for want of evidence. It has been contended by learned counsel for the appellant that due to negligence of counsel for the appellant, evidence could not be adduced as counsel did not inform the appellant that the case was fixed for evidence. However this plea which has merely been taken cannot be accepted. Sufficient opportunities were granted by learned Additional District Judge, Gurgaon, to adduce evidence and, however, the same was not adduced despite last opportunity. Moreover before this Court an application for additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure has also been filed by the appellant in which he has sought to produce copies of jamabandies for the years 1971-72 and 2001-02, Annexures A1 and A2. However, perusal of copy of jamabandi for the year 1971-72 shows that the Gram Panchayat has been recorded as cultivator. In column no.6 of the jamabandi for the year 1971-72, Annexure A2, the name of present appellant and names of some other persons were mentioned, as RFA No.3333 of 2011 (O&M) -3- owners of well or other source of irrigation of this land. The name of present appellant appears in the column of cultivator only in the jamabandi for the year 2001-02, Annexure A1. Hence, on the basis of one stray entry in the column of cultivation, it cannot be said the appellant is entitled for apportionment of compensation. Hence, in view of these facts, it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed by learned Reference Court in passing the impugned judgment. There is no merit in the present regular first appeal. The same is, hereby, dismissed in limine. 8.7.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge