R.F.A. No. 636 of 1991 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.F.A. No. 636 of 1991 (O&M) Date of decision : 1.10.2010 Vijay Singh .... Appellant vs Pawan Kumar and others .... Respondents Coram : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present:- Mr. Sudhir Aggarwal, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Hemant Sarin, Advocate, for respondents no. 1 to 4. RAJESH BINDAL, J The appellant has filed the present appeal against the award of the learned court below dated 29.10.1988 whereby his claim regarding apportionment of compensation for the acquired land has been dismissed. Briefly, the facts are that land measuring 327.52 acres situated in village Patti Jambra Shahbad was acquired vide notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, on 2.12.1982 for residential, commercial and industrial area. The Land Acquisition Collector determined the market value of the acquired land @ ` 3,2000/- per acre for Chahi land; ` 1,04,000/- per acre for Gair Mumkin plot; ` 34,880/- per acre for Gair Mumkin Rasta and ` 40,000/- per acre for Banjar Qadim kind of land. Aggrieved against the award, the landowners filed objections, which were referred to the learned Reference Court, who keeping in view the material placed on record by the parties, upheld the award of the Collector and also rejected the claim of the appellant regarding apportionment. Earlier on 11.8.2010 the appeal was dismissed in default. Learned counsel for the appellant had filed application for restoration of the appeal which was accepted considering the ground made out by him. At the time of hearing, learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to make out a case that the appellant is entitled to apportionment of compensation for the acquired land. He also failed to produce any document on record to show as to how he could claim himself to be the tenant on the land in question. Admittedly, he was a co-sharer in a joint khewat. Some portion of land R.F.A. No. 636 of 1991 -2- being in his possession, the appellant cannot claim himself to be a tenant thereon as the same is against the settled principles of law. For the reasons mentioned above, I do not find any merit in the present appeal. The same is dismissed. 1.10.2010. (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge