RFA No. 805 of 1984 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: April 20 ,2009 R.F.A. No. 805 of 1984 (O&M) Shri Shiv Kumar .. Appellant Vs. Shri Jagat Mohan and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. S.C. Kapoor, Senior Advocate with Mr. S.S.Narula, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Roopak Bansal, Advocate for respondents No. 1 and 2. Rajesh Bindal J. Challenge in the present appeal is to the order dated 31.3.1984, passed by the learned court below, whereby the claim made by the appellant for entitlement of compensation for acquisition of land measuring 16 kanals and 6 marlas of land, was rejected. Briefly, the facts are that in the year 1974, 16.327 acres of land in village Jamalpur Khurd and Patti Musalmanan was acquired by Haryana Government. The award of compensation was announced by the Collector on 10.6.1974. A dispute had arisen before the Collector as to who was entitled to receive the amount of compensation for 16 kanals and 6 marlas of land. On one hand, the appellant claimed the amount of compensation, on the other hand, respondents No. 1 and 2 claimed that amount. The Collector referred the matter to the learned court below under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act') for determination of the issue. Vide impugned order, the learned court below rejected the claim of the appellant. It is how the matter is before this Court. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the predecessor-in- interest of the appellant, his grand father, namely, Bulaki Ram alias Bulaki Shah, was allotted the land in dispute vide allotment letter dated 20.2.1960 (Ex. R5) with ownership rights w.e.f. 1.10.1955. Conveyance deed was also executed on 28.2.1962 (Ex. R6). On account of acquisition of land, the appellant is entitled to compensation for the reason that he had been given that property by Bulaki Shah, the original allottee, by way of a will. Same property was allotted to respondent RFA No. 805 of 1984 [2] No. 1 and father of respondent No. 2 (hereinafter described as `respondents No. 1 and 2') on 21.5.1956 and 26.9.1956. As the property had already been allotted to the predecessors-in-interest of the appellant, no right could possibly flow or passed on to respondents no. 1 and 2, as the property had already been allotted to the predecessor-in-interest of the appellant. It is not in dispute that the predecessor-in- interest of the appellant had been allotted the property in question for a consideration and so is the case with respondents No. 1 and 2. It is the duty of the State to compensate the party, who is deprived of his property by allotting some alternative land. It was further submitted that respondents No. 1 and 2 had earlier filed a civil suit for declaration claiming ownership of the land, which was dismissed in default on 28.10.1969. In response to the contentions raised by learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2 submitted that the land in question was allotted to respondents No. 1 and 2 on 14.2.1952, as has been admitted in paragraph 3 of the grounds of appeal filed by the appellant. Permanent rights were granted on 21.5.1956. It was subsequent thereto that the land was allotted in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the appellant on 20.2.1960 for which a conveyance deed was executed on 28.2.1962. It was after the allotment of land in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the appellant that on an application filed by the father of the appellant that allotment of land in favour of respondents No. 1 and 2 was cancelled on 30.6.1961. To challenge the cancellation, C.W.P. No. 405 of 1962 was filed in this court which was dismissed on 23.11.1962. In Letters Patent Appeal filed by respondents No. 1 and 2, judgment of the Single Bench was reversed on 30.8.1966. The judgment of LPA Bench was upheld by Hon'ble the Supreme Court on 18.1.1984. It was during the intervening period that the land in question was acquired. Referring to the aforesaid facts, it was submitted that once the allotment of land in favour of respondents No. 1 and 2 has been upheld upto Hon'ble the Supreme Court, they alone would be entitled to compensation on account of acquisition and not anyone else. Even otherwise, from the facts, it is evident that the land in question was allotted prior in time to respondents No. 1 and 2 in comparison to the predecessor-in-interest of the appellant. Once the allotment of land in favour of respondents No. 1 and 2 has been upheld in a litigation, which was fought by the father of the appellant, it cannot now be claimed that he or his grand father, who had bequeathed the property in favour of the appellant, his grand son, was not in knowledge thereof. In response to the contentions raised by learned counsel for RFA No. 805 of 1984 [3] respondents No. 1 and 2, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the judgment, in which Bulaki Ram, who was the allottee of the land was not party, is not binding on him. It was a litigation which was fought by son of Bulaki Ram and father of the appellant on different grounds. There is allotment of land in favour of Bulaki Ram alias Bulaki Shah. No fault can be found with that as it is mentioned therein that ownership rights have been vested w.e.f. 1.10.1955. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the relevant referred record, I do not find any merit in the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant. From the material placed on record and also the facts admitted by the appellant in the grounds of appeal, it is evident that respondents No. 1 and 2 had been allotted the land prior to the predecessor-in- interest of the appellant. It is admitted in the grounds of appeal by the appellant that allotment in favour of respondents No. 1 and 2 was made on 14.2.1952. It is further admitted in the grounds of appeal that permanent rights were given to respondents No. 1 and 2 vide Sanad dated 26.5.1956. In fact, the Sanad executed in favour of respondents No. 1 and 2 are available on record as Ex. R2 and Ex. R3. Vide Ex. R2, the land was allotted to Jagat Mohan son of Kanhiya Lal (respondent No. 1) w.e.f. Kharif crop 1949, vide allotment No. R4/204/7. It was executed on 15.1.1952 and it is also noted thereon that possession was delivered on 10.4.1952. Vide Ex. R3, the portion of land was allotted to Daulat Ram son of Jawahar Lal (father of respondent No. 2) w.e.f. Kharif Crop 1949 vide allotment No. R4/204/8/10. It was executed on 15.1.1952 and it is also noted thereon that possession was delivered on 10.4.1952. As far as predecessor-in-interest of the appellant is concerned, namely, Bulaki Ram alias Bulaki Shah, he was allotted certain property by Assistant Settlement Commissioner, Rohtak on 29.2.1960 w.e.f. 1.10.1955. The same was followed by a conveyance deed executed in favour of Bulaki Shah mentioning the date as 1.10.1955, whereas in terms of the Sanad produced by respondents No. 1 and 2, the date of allotment is w.e.f. Kharif Crop 1949, i.e., prior to that. The right to receive compensation will flow to respondents No. 1 and 2 on valid allotment of land in their favour. The validity of allotment of land in their favour was questioned by the son of Bulaki Ram alias Bulaki Shah and finding merit therein, the allotment was cancelled on 30.6.1961. In a challenge to the cancellation of allotment, respondents No. 1 and 2 failed before the writ court. However, before the Letters Patent Bench, judgment of the Single Bench cancelling the allotment was set aside. It has been noticed even in the earlier judgment of this Court in LPA No. 40 of 1963, decided on 30.8.1966 that initially RFA No. 805 of 1984 [4] the land was allotted to respondents No. 1 and 2 on quasi permanent basis, which was subsequently on permanent basis. Once the issue regarding validity of ownership of the land considering its allotment in favour of respondents No. 1 and 2 has been gone into upto Hon'ble the Supreme Court, in my opinion, no defect can be pointed out in their title to the property. Once that is so, it can safely be opined that on account of acquisition of land, they would be entitled to receive entire compensation therefor. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant that the judgment in earlier litigation is not binding on him for the reason that Bulaki Ram alias Bulaki Shah was not party thereto has no legs to stand because it was not a lis between respondents No. 1 and 2 or Bulaki Shah. It was the question of allotment of land in favour of respondents No. 1 and 2 by a competent authority which was challenged by none else than son of Bulaki Ram alias Bulaki Shah, who was in knowledge of the factum of its having been allotted to his father subsequent to the allotment in favour of respondents No. 1 and 2. For the reasons mentioned above, the present revision petition is dismissed. It is, however, made clear that as the only issue under consideration before the Court in reference under Section 30 of the Act was as to who shall be entitled to receive compensation on account of acquisition of land, in case the appellant has any claim against any authority for allotting land in favour of his predecessor-in-interest with defective title, in spite of having paid requisite money or on account of compensation and rehabilitation, he may avail of his appropriate remedy for that in accordance with law. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge April 20, 2009 mk