The main legal point established in the judgment is that under the Wakf Act, leases exceeding three years are void and of no effect, and lessees under void arrangements cannot be granted 3/4th compensation.

JUDGMENT :

ARUN MISHRA, J.

Leave granted.

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.

3. 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.

4. The only question agitated in the appeals is with regard to the apportionment of compensation. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Haryana Wakf Board has strenuously urged that since the status of the lessees was that of non-occupancy tenant; they could not have acquired a right of occupancy tenant over the property held by the Wakf Board. None of the lessees of Wakf Board had any right, title or interest on the basis of leases even assuming it was given on the year-to-year basis for the purpose of cultivation. No right would accrue to the lessees as per the provisions contained in the Punjab Security of Land Tenants Act, 1953 (for short "the Tenancy Act, 1953"). It was further urged that it was not permissible to grant lease for a term of more than three years and as such if lease was granted exceeding three years, was void and no right would accrue to the lessees as per the provisions contained in Section 56 of the Wakf Act, 1995 which, is pari materia to the provisions in Section 36-F of the Wakf Act, 1954.

5. It was also urged on behalf of the appellant that in Mangat Ram and Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors. [(1996) 8 SCC 664] reliance has been placed on the decisions of this Court in Harinder Singh Brar Bans Bahadur v. Bihar Lal [(1994) 4 SCC 523 and Inder Parshad v. Union of India [(1994) 5 SCC 239]. In Harinder Singh Brar (supra) the lessee was having a right to purchase under Section 18 of the Tenants Act, 1953. There was no such right available in instant cases. Thus, reliance could not have been placed on Mangat Ram (supra) to apportion compensation to the extent of 3/4 to lessee and 1/4 to Wakf Board. It was further urged that in the case of Inder Parshad (supra) the dispute was with regard to apportionment of compensation to the lessee for the land held on the perpetual lease granted by the Government. Here, the lessees were deemed trespassers as land belonging to Wakf could not have been given on lease for a period beyond three years as per the provisions contained in Section 36-F of the Wakf Act, 1954 corresponding to Section 56 of the Wakf Act, 1995.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State has submitted that it was basically the dispute between the Wakf Board and the lessee. However, it was contended that no right would accrue to the lessee over the property owned by Wakf Board. Further, as in view of the decision of Mangat Ram (supra) apportionment has been made as such no case for interference in the facts of the present case was made out.

7. Relying on the decision of this court in Mangat Ram (supra), it was contended by learned counsel for the lessees that the land was cultivated with effect from 1968-1969 and for cultivating the land payment was made to the Wakf Board, even if no right, title or interest cou