Point of Law: Acquisition of Land - Grant of compensation - Predecessors-in-interest continued to be in cultivating possession of the subject land as occupancy tenants and this position is clearly reflected in the revenue records.

JUDGMENT :

SANJEEV KUMAR, J.

1. The petitioner is aggrieved and has challenged the following communications/ certificate:

(i) Communication dated 4th of July, 2020, issued by respondent No. 6 and addressed to respondent No. 4, whereby request has been made to the later to ensure the presence of concerned Tehsildar along with revenue officials and police force to avoid any objection or resistance from the local people for acquiring land for construction of Receiving Station at Greater Kailash under Central Sponsored Scheme PMDP Urban.

(ii) Certificate dated 6th of July, 2020, whereby the authorities of Power Development Department have claimed to have taken over the possession of State land measuring 2 kanals falling in Khasra No. 96 in Village Chowadhi for construction of Receiving Station.

(iii) Communication of respondent No. 5 dated 25th of June, 2019, addressed to respondent No. 4, whereby the former has certified to the later, by reference to revenue documents, that the land measuring 2 kanals each falling under Khasra No. 96 and 1328 situated at Village Chowadhi is State land.

2. The impugned communications have been assailed by the petitioner, primarily, on the ground that the subject land measuring 2 kanals falling under Khasra No. 96 is being forcibly taken over by the respondents without adopting any due process of law. It is claimed that the petitioner is an occupancy tenant of the subject land and, therefore, is entitled to compensation, should the respondents decide to acquire the said land.

3. With a view to appreciating the grievance of the petitioner, as projected by him in this petition, it is necessary to notice few material facts.

4. The subject land is a land measuring 2 kanals falling under Khasra No. 96 of estate Chowadhi in District Jammu. As admitted by the respondent revenue authorities, as per Girdawari entries from the year 1958 to Rabi 1962, the subject land is recorded in the ownership of State with the names of Balak Ram, Santokh Singh and Daleep Singh in equal shares as “Maroosi Hissadaran” recorded as persons in cultivating possession. From Kharief 1962 to 1974, the subject land is recorded under the ownership of Rasal Singh and others and under the cultivation of Balak Ram, Santokh Singh and Daleep Singh as “Hissadaran bahissa barabar.” However, with effect from Rabi 1975 to Rabi 1982, the Girdawari entry of said Khasra number is recorded as under ownership of State and in cultivating possession of Balak Ram, Santokh Singh and Daleep Singh. From Kharief 1982 to Rabi 1987, the subject land is recorded under the ownership of State with names of Balak Ram, Santokh Singh and Daleep Singh in the tenancy column. However, from Kharief 1987 till date, the said Khasra Number is recorded under the ownership of State with names of Balak Ram, Santokh Singh and Daleep Singh as “Maroosi” under Section 4(4) in the tenancy column. This is the indisputable position recorded in the revenue records.

5. The dispute appears to be with regard to the attestation of mutation No. 272 dated 08.06.1957. As per the petitioner, by virtue of mutation No. 272 dated 08.06.1957, the land falling in Khasra No. 96, 486 and 487, beyond 182 kanals of ceiling limit of the erstwhile owner was escheated to the State by operation of Big Landed Estates Abolition Act, 1950 [“the Act”] and simultaneously with the extinction of ownership right of the erstwhile owner, the tillers, namely, Balak Rama, the father of the petitioner, and his brothers, were conferred the occupancy tenancy rights. It is claimed that it is on the basis of aforesaid mutation, the petitioner has all along been shown in the revenue records as occupancy tenant of the land including the subject land measuring 2 kanals.

6. On the contrary, the official respondents also placing reliance upon mutation No. 272 dated 08.06.1957, submit that in terms of said mutation, not only the land exceeding the ceiling limit of the erstwhile owners, namely, Dharmoo and others was escheated to th