Case: Haryana Wakf Board Vs. State of Haryana &amp; Others

learned Single Judge, it must be said, with great respect to him, is based on misconstruction of the provisions of sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 18 of the Tenures Act. The value of the land envisages under sub-section (2) is not the market value of the land but the value of the land which should be the average price of land in the neighbourhood during 10 years preceding the date of making of the application by the tenant for purchase of land. What sub-section (3) says, is that the purchase price of the tenanted land must be three-fourths of the value of the land determined under sub-section (2), which means that the value of the tenanted land could only be three-fourths of the average value of the neighbouring land during ten years preceding the date of making of the application by the tenant for purchase. Here is a statutory measure required to be adopted to find out the purchase price of tenanted land and not the supposed market value of that land as on the date of making of the application for purchase. If that be so, we are unable to understand how the market value of the land which will be far different from the statutory value of the land could be regarded as the same, as has been done by the learned Single Judge. Hence, the contention raised on behalf of the appellant that the landowner would be entitled to three-fourths of the market value of the land becomes unsustainable. If we have regard to the provisions under sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 18 of the Tenures Act, rightly adverted to by the learned Single Judge, the amount of compensation to which a landowner becomes entitled can only be the purchase price which he would be entitled under the said provisions for his land, which the tenant had a right to purchase thereunder. If the purchase in favour of the tenant was over, as indicated in sub-section (5) (sic) of Section 18, the purchase price, it must be kept in mind, could have been recovered by the landowner as arrears of revenue. Therefore, in our view, the tenant could have been entitled to get out of the component of compensation awardable as market value in answer item (I) referred to above and the solatium and interest payable thereon, only that amount of compensation which could be equivalent to the purchase price liable to be paid by the tenant to the landowner under Section 18 of the Tenures Act and nothing more or less. Hence, our answer to the question under consideration is, that if a tenanted land which its tenant was entitled to purchase under Section 18 of the Tenures Act did vest in the State by reason of its acquisition under the L.A. Act before he became its deemed owner as envisaged under sub-section (4) of Section 18 of the Tenures Act, the landowner of that tenanted land could have made a claim for compensation awardable therefor under the L.A. Act and his entitlement out of the said compensation could only be that falling in the component of compensation in item (i), the market value of that land together with solatium and interest, however, limited to the amount of purchase price which he was entitled to get for the land answered under Section 18 of the Tenures Act and nothing more or less."This Court in the aforesaid dictum has come to the eventual answer to the question raised for its consideration, that in such case the tenants should have been paid the compensation in its entirety as he had right to purchase property in accordance with provisions of the Tenancy Act, 1953. That is not the situation in the instant case available as per the provisions contained in the Wakf Act. 14. Thus, this Court in Mangat Ram (supra) relied upon the aforesaid two decisions in Inder Parshad (supra) and Harvinder Singh Brar (supra) which did not deal with nor laid down the law with respect to the rights of tenants for apportionment of compensation, who were not having any title or right of tenancy for exceeding a period of three years and such leases being void under aforesaid provisions of the Wakf Act. They will be deemed to be trespassers. This aspect was not raised for consideration nor decided in Mangat Ram (supra) or in relied upon cases. The ratios of relied upon cases was totally different and could not form the foundation for apportionment of compensation in Mangat Ram (supra). Thus, it could not be an authority on the said issue. Such person could at the most be granted 10% of the amount considering the long possession and for displacement. 15. We clarify that we are not holding that this ratio shall apply to other cases. But it will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and nature of rights. In any view of the matter, such tenants under void arrangement could not have been granted 3/4th compensation. 16. In the instant case, the possession has already been taken by the acquiring body and compensation has already been disbursed to the lessees. It is stated that they are poor persons and they were holding the said land as the only source of livelihood and by now have spent the amount paid to them, though undertaking was given to the Wakf Board to refund the amount. But as the amount has already been spent, the lessees being poor persons it would be difficult to them to refund the amount, in exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution it is directed that there shall be no recovery of the amount paid to them under order of the High Court as that was based upon the decision of Mangat Ram (supra) which we have clarified in the present case. Thus, it is made clear that no recovery shall be made of the amount on the basis of the conclusion recorded by us.

Court's decision (1 = petition accepted / positive for appellant, 0 = rejected / negative): 1

Reasoning from the judgment:
1[ds]8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, in our opinion, a person in settled possession can be disbursed some compensation on account of displacement and deprivation of the possession by virtue of acquisition of land. However, the quantum of compensation to be apportioned between the lessee or a person in settled possession of the land and owner would depend upon nature of rights existing with a person in possession under the prevalent laws and arrangement under which he is holding the land. It is apparent that under the Wakf Act, 1954 the provisions contained in Sectionrestricts the powers to grant lease of Wakf property exceeding three years and the non obstante clause contained in Sectionprovides that such a transaction, if entered into, shall be void and of no effect until and unless it is made with the previous sanction of the Board. In this case, admittedly, there was no sanction of the Board. Thus, the arrangement entered into inexceeding three years would not confer any right, title or interest upon the lessee. Even if sanction had been granted by the Board it would not render lease void but would not confer any rights, under Tenancy Act, 1953.In view of theclause contained in provisions of Sectionof the Wakf Act, 1954 the provisions contained in Section 18 of the Tenancy Act, 1953 would not be applicable. In the instant case, it is apparent that even if we accept the submission raised by learned counsel appearing on behalf of some of the lessees that the arrangement was on thebasis it would not confer any right. In fact, leases were for the period exceeding three years. It was an impermissible and void arrangement as such no title would accrue to the lessee. They were holding Wakf property, which by its very nature was dedicated for the public purpose and no right could be conferred to the lessees on the basis of void leases. In such cases Section 18 of Tenancy Act, 1953 is not applicable. In such case, the status of the lessees would be that of a deemed trespasser and trespasser have no right to possess the property as such could not said to be entitled for disbursement of the compensation to the extent of 3/4th. Only some amount of compensation owing to displacement could have been given or in case there was a crop, for damage of the crop. They could not successfully claim apportionment on the basis of the price of the land as there was no ownership right or occupancy right vested with such lessees. The extent of compensation to be paid in such cases would depend upon the facts of each case, nature of possession, rights, if any, and noformula can be laid down in this regard. At the most in such a case where there is no right, title conferred or accrued by virtue of cultivation of the land of occupancy, the compensation to the extent of 5% to 15% could have been given for the purpose ofin view of the fact that a person had been displaced and deprived of right to livelihood. The major part of compensation must be paid to the owner in suchis settled proposition of law that a decision cannot be said to be an authority on the issue that has not beenthe cases at hand, there was no right conferred upon the tenant to become the occupancy tenant or lessee beyond three years, which could be said to have been taken away by the land acquisition. This Court has observed in Harinder Singh Brar (supra) that certain amount in respect of the purchase price would have to be paid by the tenant while exercising right, as per formulae provided under Section 18 of the Tenancy Act, 1953. The owner would not be entitled to anything more.Thus, this Court in Mangat Ram (supra) relied upon the aforesaid two decisions in Inder Parshad (supra) and Harvinder Singh Brar (supra) which did not deal with nor laid down the law with respect to the rights of tenants for apportionment of compensation, who were not having any title or right of tenancy for exceeding a period of three years and such leases being void under aforesaid provisions of the Wakf Act. They will be deemed to be trespassers. This aspect was not raised for consideration nor decided in Mangat Ram (supra) or in relied upon cases. The ratios of relied upon cases was totally different and could not form the foundation for apportionment of compensation in Mangat Ram (supra). Thus, it could not be an authority on the said issue. Such person could at the most be granted 10% of the amount considering the long possession and for displacement.We clarify that we are not holding that this ratio shall apply to other cases. But it will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and nature of rights. In any view of the matter, such tenants under void arrangement could not have been granted 3/4th compensation.In the instant case, the possession has already been taken by the acquiring body and compensation has already been disbursed to the lessees. It is stated that they are poor persons and they were holding the said land as the only source of livelihood and by now have spent the amount paid to them, though undertaking was given to the Wakf Board to refund the amount. But as the amount has already been spent, the lessees being poor persons it would be difficult to them to refund the amount, in exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution it is directed that there shall be no recovery of the amount paid to them under order of the High Court as that was based upon the decision of Mangat Ram (supra) which we have clarified in the present case. Thus, it is made clear that no recovery shall be made of the amount on the basis of the conclusion recorded by us.