DURGA DAS

THE COLLECTOR AND ORS.

AUGUST 7, 1996

[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.]

Land Acquisition Act, 1894:

Compe11satio1t-lands belonging to different members of one fami- C ly--Purchaser of share of one of the family membm claiming himself as

tenant in respect of the land falling i11 the share of another member of the family and acquired u11der the Act-Held 110 lease deed was executed in

respect of the lands acquired which fell i11 the share of a11other member of . the family-Title to the prope1ty cannot be claimed Oil the basis of 111utatio11

entries-Purchaser cannot be treated to be a tenant to clainz con1pensation in D respect of the land acquired.

La11d.laws :

Mutatioll e1tt1ies-Held, do 1tot co1tfer any title to property--17zese are 01tly e1ttries for collection of land revenue from person in possession.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No; 664 of 1985.

From the Judgment and Order dated 4.5.1984 of the Himachal Pradesh High Court in R.F.A. No. 24 of 1984.

S.L. Aneja and K.L. Taneja, for the appellants.

K.R. Nagaraja for the Respondents.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :

Counsel for the appellant states that the office report dated July 16, 1996 has been complied with.

This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla made in M.F.A. No. 24/84 on May 5, H 1984. The only question is : whether the appellant is a tenant in occupation

• •

DURGA DAS v. COLLECTOR 371

of the land? He claimed that he was entitled to compensation in respect A of subject matter of acquisition as tenant. The reference Court and the High Court recorded as a fact that the appellant is not a tenant and, therefore, is not entitled to the share in the compensation as a tenant. The undisputed facts are that 14 cannals 18 marlas of land belonged to the family consisting of Kishori Lal, Kewal Krishan and Koushalya, their sister, Kishori Lal and Koushalya sold their respective suitable shares. Kewal Krishan also sold his specified share to the appellant. It would appear that

in the revenue records the name of the appellant has been entered as a qualifying tenant by reason of sale when the land to an extent of land admeasuring one canal, 5 marlas; 2 canals, 3 marlas belonged to Vijay Kumar were acquireded by the Government. The appellant laid claim as a tenant in respect thereof. The courts below held that since he purchased c

a specified share from Kewal Krishan he cannot be considered to be as a tenant in respect of in other lands and, therefore, is not entitled to the compensation. We find that the view taken by the High Court is in conformity with law. Mutation entries do not confer any title to the proper- D ty. It is only an entry for collection of the land revenue from the person in possession. The title to the property should be on the basis of the title they acquired to the land and not by mutation entries. Admittedly, the appellant has purchased some lands from Kewal Krishan on~ of the brothers of the family to the extent of his specified share. No lease deed was executed in respect of other lands. In these circumstances, the appellant cannot be treated to be a tenant of Vijay Kumar to claim compensation on the basis of this title as a tenant.

The Court below is directed to pay over the amount to Vijay Kumar and if the amount is withdrawn by the appellant, Bank guarantee should be encashed and the balance amount would he paid over to the appellant.

If the amount was not withdrawn the bank guarantee given by the appellant is directed to be discharged.

The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

R.P.

Appeal dismissed. G