R.F.A. No. 697 of 1988 [ 1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.F.A. No. 697 of 1988 Date of decision: September 05, 2008 Jawala Singh deceased through his L.Rs. and others. .. Appellants. v. Bashir Ahmad deceased through his L.Rs. and others. .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Y. K. Sharma, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. P. S. Kang, Advocate for the respondents. .. Rajesh Bindal J. The land owners are in appeal before this Court against the judgment of the learned Court below, whereby in an application filed under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act'), the learned Court below directed the apportionment of compensation amongst the parties to the extent of 50:50. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that undisputedly, the appellants are the owners of the property in dispute. The respondents were given the possession thereof only for planting the orchard. They were not tenants as such on the property. They were to share 50% of the fruits and accordingly, the compensation on account of acquisition of land was not required to be apportioned. At the most, the respondents could stake a claim for apportionment on account of compensation for trees or plants etc. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that as per the undisputed material on record, the respondents through their predecessors- in-interest are in possession of the property in dispute since the 1941, as is evident from jamabandis Ex. A.1 to A. 5 on record. Even the mutation was also sanctioned in their favour on 25.4.1954. In fact, they had developed the barren land in the form of an orchard. Even as per the agreement between R.F.A. No. 697 of 1988 [ 2] the parties, the possession was to go back to the owners only in case the orchard/garden was cut, otherwise the respondents were to remain in possession. As rent of the property the appellants were being paid in the form of 50% of the yield of fruits and 50% of the fuel wood. He relied upon a judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Mangat Ram etc. v. State of Haryana and others, 1996 LACC 377 to submit that in case of apportionment, a tenant is entitled to 75% of the compensation, whereas the landlord is entitled to merely 25% thereof. The judgment was further followed by this Court in Gram Panchayat, Kanehi v. Ram Kumar and others, (2001-2) PLR 186. He further submitted that in the present case, the Court had merely granted the respondents 50% share in the compensation, though they were entitled to 75%. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The undisputed facts on record are that the appellants had parted with possession of the property to the predecessors-in-interest of the respondents way back in 1941 for the plantation of orchard and since then they are in possession of the property on payment of rent not in cash but in kind, namely, 50% of the yield of fruits and 50% of fuel wood. The land in question was acquired vide notification dated 20.11.1980. The amount of compensation which falls to the share of both the parties is approximately Rs. 16,000/-, as is evident from the order passed by this Court on 28.7.1988. Keeping in view the fact that admittedly, the respondents were in possession of the property for the last 40 years on the date of acquisition of land, who had developed the same into an orchard and further the fact that the amount involved is merely Rs. 16,000/-, this Court, at this stage, would not like to disturb the findings recorded by the learned Court below. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge September 05 , 2008 mk