IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA R.F.A No. 113 of 2001. Judgement reserved on: 17.3.2008 Date of decision: 18.3.2008. Roshan Lal & ors. ….. Appellants. Vs. The Collector, Land Acquisition & anr. …. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellants : Mr. K.D. Sood, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. A.K.Bansal, Addl. Advocate General. Kuldip Singh, Judge. This appeal has been directed against the award, dated 23.11.2000, passed by learned District Judge, Mandi in Reference Petition No. 1 of 1996. 2. The facts in brief are that land, measuring 251 square meters, bearing khasra Nos. 1202, 1203 and 1205, was acquired for public purpose, namely for construction of National Highway-21, in Mohal Pungh, an amount of Rs.7375/- was assessed as compensation to be paid to the interested persons. It has been alleged that appellants are the sons of Nizam Din, who had filed Reference No. 68/89, before the learned District Judge, which was Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes …2… decided on 27.8.1990 alongwith other reference cases. The award, dated 27.8.1990 in Reference No. 68 of 1989 has been assailed by the respondents by way of RFA No. 77 of 1991. The compensation has been awarded, but the same has been wrongly, illegaly deposited in the name of H.P.P.W.D., the appellants are entitled to receive the entire amount of compensation. On these grounds, the petitioners filed reference petition, under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the Act) for apportionment of the compensation. In the petition, the appellants have pleaded that khasra Nos. 1202, 1203 and 1205 belong to H.P.W.D. but petitioners are in possession of the same and are recorded as tenants. Therefore, the appellants claimed the entire amount of compensation awarded in the case. 3. The petition was contested by the respondents. It has been pleaded that compensation has been rightly deposited in the name of P.W.D since the Government of Himachal Pradesh is the owner of the land as per record and appellants are recorded in possession as “Kirayedar”, no award regarding house has been made. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:- 1. Whether the petitioners are entitled for apportionment of the compensation, if so, how much? OPP. 2. Relief. The learned District Judge has answered the reference in negative, hence, this appeal. 4. I have heard Mr. K.D.Sood, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. A.K. Bansal, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondents and gone through the record. It has been …3… submitted by Mr. Sood, that the appellants are in possession of the land comprised in khasra Nos. 1202, 1203 and 1205 as tenants. The State is recorded as owner of the land, and, therefore, on the basis of possession of the appellants they are entitled to some portion of the compensation. 5. Mr. Bansal, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents has submitted that appellants have failed to make out any case for receiving the compensation. The appellants have not pleaded any title with respect to the land comprised in khasra Nos. 1202, 1203 and 1205. Their case of tenancy has also not been proved. 6. PW 1 Chhota Ram has stated that the acquired land is situated in village Pungh. This land was earlier owned by Raja Suket. In the year 1947, their houses were set on fire. Raja had allotted the land comprised in khasra Nos. 1202, 1203 and 1205, measuring about 251 square meters in the year 1947 and since then they are in possession. No compensation of this land was given to them. He and his brother filed a reference petition in which compensation was increased and the case was decided on 27.8.1990, vide case No. 68 of 1989, but despite that no compensation has been paid to them. The Collector has filed an appeal in the High Court, being RFA No. 77 of 1991. PW 2 Hardyal has stated that he has seen the acquired land, which has been acquired by P.W.D. alongwith the house. The appellants are in possession of this land since 1947. 7. PW 1 in his statement has not stated anything about the title of the appellants on the acquired land nor he has stated about …4… tenancy of appellants on acquired land or on any structure built on acquired land, his oral statement that land was allotted to them is not sufficient to prove the title. The tenancy of the appellants on land or structure situate on the acquired land has also not been proved. At its best, the appellants have stated about their long possession on the acquired land, but they have not proved any title on the acquired land. RFA No. 77 of 1999 arising out of Reference Case No. 68 of 1989 has been dismissed by this court on 3.7.1997. 8. The appellants have failed to prove their title on the acquired land. The learned District Judge has rightly appreciated the material on record. No case for interference has been made out. Consequently, appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. March 18, 2008. ( Kuldip Singh ) (Hem) Judge.