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

2. The Haryana Wakf Board against the judgment and order dated 10th February 2014 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, has preferred the appeals pertaining to the apportionment of compensation to the extent of 3/4 to the lessee and 1/4 to the Haryana Wakf Board.The lands belonging to the Wakf Board at Panipat and Hissar had been acquired by issuance of Notification dated 12th September 2001 and 21st March 1991, respectively. The Land Acquisition Collector vide award dated 16th March 1994 determined the compensation, and directed its payment to the Wakf Board only; no compensation was paid to the respondents, as they failed to prove that they were occupancy tenants of the land in question. A reference was sought under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Reference Court opined that the lessees were entitled to compensation to the extent of 3/4 shares and Wakf Board to the extent of 1/4 share. The Wakf Board preferred appeals in the High Court. The High Court did not make any interference with the apportionment made by the Reference Court and dismissed the appeals. Hence, the Wakf Board has come up in the appeals.

Reasoning: 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.