The purpose of compulsory acquisition is to acquire a definite specific area on the ground, and revenue records should reflect the ground realities with proper demarcation of land.

ORDER

K.S. Janjua, FC. - These are four connected revision petitions received in a reference from Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar. 74.9 acres were acquired by Jalandhar Improvement Trust (hereinafter called the Trust). Although in the major portion of area full Khasra Nos. were acquired by the Trust but some Nos. were acquired by the Trust in parts. The Trust and respondents in these Khasra Nos. were entered as joint owners/co-sharers. For the Khasra Nos. where the parts were acquired and the Trust was the co-sharer, owners/respondents filed application for partition in the court of AC-I. Objections were raised by the Trust and they were overruled by AC-I. The Trust went in appeal against this order before SDO (Civil)-cum-Collector, Jalandhar who dismissed the appeal of the Trust. Aggrieved by this order the Trust filed 4 revision petitions before Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar who has recommended that petitions be accepted.

2. It has been argued before me that the respondents are co-sharers in revenue records. This fact is denied by the Trusts Counsel. Respondents claim that as per the report of Tehsildar dated 22.10.1998 which is accompanied by copies of Jamabandi for the year 1994-95, they are co-sharers with the Trust. Revenue records support this version of the respondents.

3. Trusts counsel argued that specific area for specific public purpose was acquired by the Trust. Acquisition was done through Punjab Town Improvement Act. It was not the purpose of the acquisition to acquire joint ownership with the landowners. The landowners were deprived of certain specific area through acquisition. They have received the compensation for the land acquired by the Trust. Although joint ownership has been reflected in the jamabandi (1994-95) but the facts and circumstances on the ground are contrary to this. It was argued that mutations have not been properly entered and attested. Instead of specific area, shares have been given to the Trust. The order of acquisition does not reflect this position.

4. I have considered the facts and the arguments advanced by both the parties in this case. It is true that the Trust does not and could not have acquired the proportionate share of contested Khasra Nos. It will be against the spirit of acquisition if the joint ownership is created and acquiring department or Trust has to go for partition again. The purpose of compulsory acquisition is to acquire definite specific area on the ground. It cannot be the purpose of acquisition to have only the share of the land. What will the Trust do with only the share of land ? Such acquisition will be meaningless. It appears that after specific areas have been acquired the revenue authorities have not properly divided the Khasra Nos. while attesting the mutations. They should have separated area of the Trust and landowners and prepared Tatimas. In fact, specific demarcation of land takes place when the land is acquired under Land Acquisition Act and Punjab Improvement Trust Act. The fact that mutations have been entered and Jamabandis have been prepared does not alter the ground realities. Wrongly prepared Jamabandi, on the face of it, has to be amended and corrected.

5. Another argument given by the counsel for the respondent was that there is no approach to some of their fields. I feel that respondents can seek redress from the proper forum on this. They should have agitated the matter when the land acquisition proceedings were underway.

6. Having held that mutations have been correctly attested and Jamabandi based on them requires amendment, I see merit and force in the revision petition/reference which is accepted and allowed. Instead of going ahead with partition A.C.-I should have the record amended properly keeping in view the Land Acquisition Award and position on the ground.

The Trust has also been negligent in not watching their interests. They should have seen to it that mutations were entered and attested properly.

To be