Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.

( 1 ) THE appellant was the owner of land measuring 20 bighas 7 biswas situated in the revenue estate of Village Baharpur, Near kalkaji, New Delhi. The land was originally owned by the father of appellant and recorded in the Jamabandi in the year 1949-50. The mutation was sanctioned in favour of the appellant on 20. 9. 1973.

( 2 ) OUT of the aforesaid land, 18 bighas 4 biswas of land was acquired in pursuance to the proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter to be referred to as, the said Act ) and the Award was made by the Land acquisition Collector on 25. 6. 1979.

( 3 ) A dispute arose about the disbursement of compensatior in view of the claim raised by the respondent who alleged that he was in possession of the land in question and was quarrying stones from the land. A part of the stones extracted from the quarry were stated to be lying at site. This was naturally disputed by the appellant.

( 4 ) IT may be noticed that the original claim of the respondent was based on being in quarry possession as a Bhumidar under The Delhi Land Reforms act, 1954, but this claim was subsequently amended to that of a non-occupancy tenantunder the provisions of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, (hereinafter to be referred to as PLR Act ), the enactment governing the land in question.

( 5 ) A reference was made under the provisions of Sections 30/31 of the said act and in terms of the order/judgment dated 7. 10. 1980 in LAC No. 70/71, learned Additional District Judge ( for short, adj ) held that the appellant as owner was entitled to 40% of the compensation, while 60% of the compensation would be payable to the respondent. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant aggrieved by the said order/judgment.

( 6 ) THE respondent, in order to substantiate his plea before the learned ADJ, relied upon the copies of Khasra Girdawris and the copy of Jamabandi in terms whereof the predecessor-in-interest of the appellant was recorded in possession of the land and succession to the appellant on the demise of his father was also recorded. The possession of the respondent was recorded in Khasra Girdawris from 1975 to 1979. The only independent witness called to the witness box was shri Yad Ram, who was working as a Naib Tehsildar from the year 1969 to april, 1980 and affirmed to correctness of the documents filed on the basis of verification from the record, though the same were not made in his hand. None of the parties sought the presence of revenue authority, which had recorded the revenue entries, teamed ADJ noted the fact that nature of the land as recorded in the Jamabandi was Ghair Mumkin Pahar and in the Khasra Girdawris as ghair Mumkin Dharamsala. There was no recording of any unauthorised possession on the land and nothing was brought on record before learned ADJ by the appellant to suggest that the entries had been challenged in appropriate proceedings.

( 7 ) IT may be noticed in this behalf that in terms of the provisions of Section 45 of the PLR Act, a suit could have been brought by any person aggrieved by the record of rights. The said section is as under:

"45. Suit for declaratory decree by persons aggrieved by an entry in a record - If any person considers himself aggrieved as to any right of which he is in possession by an entry in a record-of-rights or in an annual record, he may institute a suit for a declaration of his right under Chapter vi of the Specific Relief Act, 1877. "

( 8 ) THE aforesaid section, thus, makes it clear that correctness of the record of rights could be challenged in a civil suit and a suit could have been brought by the person aggrieved by certain entries in the Khasra Girdawri for rectification of the entry in the revenue records. This was admittedly never done by the appellant.

( 9 ) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant initially sought to contend that the khasra Girdawri had only rebutable evidenciary value and that the Khasra girdawri is not an entry of records

Click Here to Read the rest of this document