2001 (3) TMI 1050 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Market price of the acquired land at the time of acquisition.
2. Ownership of the acquired land and entitlement to compensation.
3. Entitlement of Dholidars to claim compensation.
4. Entitlement of tenants to claim compensation.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Market Price of the Acquired Land:
The court held that since the reference was under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, there was no necessity to determine the market price of the acquired area.

2. Ownership of the Acquired Land and Entitlement to Compensation:
The court examined whether the Gram Panchayat alone was the owner of the acquired land and entitled to the entire compensation. It was concluded that the Gram Panchayat was indeed the owner of the property, but Khem Ram and Ram Kumar were Gair Marusis (tenants). Consequently, the Gram Panchayat was entitled to 1/4th share of the compensation, while Khem Ram and Ram Kumar were entitled to 3/4th share. This decision was based on a precedent from the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

3. Entitlement of Dholidars to Claim Compensation:
The court observed that Smt. Bhagwati and others, being Dholidars on the acquired land, had become full-fledged owners as per law and custom. Therefore, they were entitled to the entire compensation. The Gram Panchayat did not dispute this finding.

4. Entitlement of Tenants to Claim Compensation:
The court scrutinized whether Ram Kumar and Khem Ram were tenants at the time of acquisition. Evidence showed that Ram Kumar and Khem Ram were in possession of the land as Gair Marusis and had not been ejected by the Gram Panchayat. Documentary evidence like Khasra Girdawaries from 1975 to 1990 supported their continuous possession. The court affirmed that both Ram Kumar and Khem Ram were tenants and entitled to 3/4th of the compensation, while the Gram Panchayat was entitled to 1/4th, aligning with the Supreme Court's judgment in Mangat Ram's case.

Application under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C.:
The Gram Panchayat's application to produce additional evidence was dismissed. The court emphasized that additional evidence could not be introduced as a matter of right and must comply with the essential ingredients of Order 18 Rule 17-A or Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. The proposed evidence was already in the possession of the Gram Panchayat and could have been produced earlier. The court also noted that even if the additional evidence were allowed, it would not improve the Gram Panchayat's case.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed both the appeal and the application under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C., affirming the trial court's judgment. The compensation was apportioned with 3/4th awarded to the tenants (Ram Kumar and Khem Ram) and 1/4th to the Gram Panchayat. The court ordered no costs for the appeal.