RFA No.1140 of 1991

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

RFA No.1140 of 1991

Date of Decision.03.10.2012

Sham Lal resident of outside Rania Gate, Gali Neki Ram Gujjar, Sirsa and

others

.....Appellants

Versus

The State of Haryana through Collector, Sirsa, District Sirsa and others

.....Respondents

Present:

Mr. Sanjeev Gupta, Advocate

for the appellants.

Mr. D.D. Gupta, Addl. A.G., Haryana

for the respondents No.1 and 2.

Mr. Sandeep Punchhi, Advocate

for respondent Nos.3 to 8.

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the

judgment ? No

2.

To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No

3.

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No

-.-

K. KANNAN J.(ORAL)

1.

The point in dispute before the Court is apportionment under

Section 30 as the extent of entitlement to person, who claimed to be the

tenant, entitled to right of purchase. The appellants contended that they

were entitled to 75% of the amount determined as compensation as a

person, who was the cultivator of the property. The respondents'

contention, who admittedly were the owners, was that the appellants had

admittedly not secured the right of purchase through an application under

the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953. This, according to the

learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, could make a

difference from situation that would warrant payment of 75% compensation

to a tenant.

RFA No.1140 of 1991

-2-

2.

In the matter relating to apportionment of compensation

between agricultural tenants and landlords, the rights have varied over a

period of time from 40% to a tenant to 75% and from 60% to 25% to a

landlord depending on the security of tenure and the nature of enjoyment

of the property. In Inder Prashad Vs. Union of India 1994(5) SCC 239,

the Supreme Court was dealing with reference to apportionment of

compensation under Section 30 in respect of Nazul land given on lease by

Government. The Land Acquisition Collector had apportioned the

compensation by 67% and 33% between the lessee and the Government,

which was altered by the High Court as 75% and 25% to the lessee and the

lessor respectively. The judgment of the High Court was affirmed by the

Supreme Court. A still later judgment in Mangat Ram Vs. State of

Haryana 1996(8) SCC 664, the apportionment of compensation between

the landlord and tenant was again in the range of 1/4^th and 3/4^th share in

the compensation. The Supreme Court was actually relying on the earlier

ruling in Inder Prashad's case (supra) for apportioning 3/4^th share to a

tenant. Yet another decision relied on by learned counsel appearing for

the appellants is Col. Sir Harinder Singh Brar Bans Bahadur Vs. Bihari

Lal 1994(4) SCC 523 where the Collector had allowed the tenant to

purchase the land of his land owner under Section 18(4) of Punjab Security

of Land Tenures Act. The tenant had paid only the first installment as price

and the property at that time had been acquired. In case where the tenant

obtains a proprietary right by a purchase under the Punjab Security of Land

Tenures Act, there is hardly any scope for proof providing for an

apportionment to a landlord if the right had already fructified and the

tenant had become owner of the property. We are considering only a

situation where the relationship of tenant and landlord still subsists. It is,

RFA No.1140 of 1991

-3-

therefore, irrelevant that the tenant did not apply under Section 18 of the

Security of Land Tenure Act for purchase of the property from the land

owner. The attempt to differentiate the judgment of the Supreme Court in

relation to the tenant not having applied under Section 18 for purchase of

the property, therefore, has no meaning. It is a status as such tenant of an

agricultural land with a security of tenure provided by the land legislation

that entitles a larger