Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mangat Ram (Deceased) Through Lrs And vs Unknown on 7 September, 2010
Author: Rajesh Bindal
Bench: Rajesh Bindal
R.F.A. No. 1408 of 1992 [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
R.F.A. No. 1408 of 1992 (O&M)
Date of decision: 7.9.2010
Mangat Ram (deceased) through LRs and
others
.. Appellants
v.
Sham Lat Patti Kilohre
.. Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL
Present: Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate for the appellants.
Mr. Rajat Panjeta, Advocate for the respondent.
...
Rajesh Bindal J.
Challenge in the present appeal is to the award of the learned court below, whereby in a petition under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act') regarding apportionment of compensation, the present appellants have been awarded 60% thereof and 40% has been determined as share of the respondent.
Briefly, the facts of the case are that vide notification dated 17.11.1982, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act'), State of Haryana acquired 256.84 acres of land in the revenue estate of village Jharsa (Gurgaon) for residential, commercial and industrial area of Sector 15 in Gurgaon. The same was followed by notification dated 10.12.1984, issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') announced the award on 21.9.1986. As there was a dispute about apportionment of compensation, the appellants filed reference under Section 30 of the Act with the plea that they were entitled to receive the entire amount of compensation being Dholidars. Vide impugned award, the learned court below held the appellants entitled to receive 60% compensation. It is this award, which is impugned in the present appeal.
Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that as per the evidence produced on record by the appellants, they were Dholidars in the land in question, which was acquired by the State. Dholi had been given to them as Purnath, as is R.F.A. No. 1408 of 1992 [2] evident from the jamabandi for the year 1981-82 (Ex. P1). Once a Dholi has been given as Purnath, it is not reverted back to the donor and the donee becomes its absolute owner. He further submitted that the factum of the appellants being Dholidars is not even disputed by the respondent as no appeal has been filed by it challenging the finding of the learned court below to that extent. While relying upon a judgment of this Court in Ram Pat v. Mangal, (2009-4) PLR 59, the submission was that the appellants are entitled to receive the entire amount of compensation for the acquired land and the award of the learned court below directing apportionment in the ratio of 60:40 between the appellants and the respondent, deserves to be set aside.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the learned court below has not committed any illegality. For the purpose of determination of respective shares of both the parties, reliance was placed upon a judgment of this Court in Dhani Ram v. Gram Sabha, 1984 PLJ 234, wherein it was opined that Dholi is not a permanent tenure. The moment, Dholidar fails to render requisite services, for which Dholi is created, its rights are extinguished and the property reverts back to the original owner. As the appellants failed to render any service, the land stood reverted to the owner. Even 60% compensation awarded by the learned court below in favour of the appellants was not called for. The prayer was for dismissal of the appeal.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant referred record.
While considering an identical issue, this Court in Ram Pat's case (supra) opined that a Dholi as Pukhta given Purnath cannot be taken back. Once it is given an absolute gift, Dholidar becomes owner thereof with no right of reversion to the owners of the land. Relevant paragraphs thereof are extracted below:
"8. In Dharamvir's case (supra), a Division Bench, while dealing with the various kinds of Dholi's opined that `dholi' tenure has to be held to be inalienable if `dholi' is a grant or trust for religious purpose. On the other hand, if `dholi' is a gift, restriction on alienability will not apply. Crucial issue for holding whether `dholi' tenure was alienable or not will depend upon terms of `dholi', express or implied and answered the question referred in the following terms:
(i) The `dholi' tenure may be a rent free grant for the benefit of a temple, mosque or shrine or to a person for a religious purpose R.F.A. No. 1408 of 1992 [3] and the grant continues till the holder carries out the duties of his office and can be terminated on failure to carry out the said duties as held in Sewa Ram's case, AIR 1972 Lahore 126 (supra).
(ii) `Dohlidar' may be a land owner qua his tenant in the situation mentioned in Baba Badri Dass's case 1981 PLJ 447 (supra).
(iii) Dohlidar may be an owner if `dohli' is in the nature of gift and at the time of creating `dohli' no condition for use of the dohli land for the benefit of a temple, mosque or shrine or other religious purpose is imposed, as noticed in judgments of this Court in Baba Badri Dass's case 1981 PLJ 447 (supra).
9. Perusal of the petition filed by the appellants under Section 30 of the Act shows that the claim was that their predecessors in the interest were in possession of the land under acquisition since long as Dohlidhars on account of Punarth. In fact the land was gifted to the predecessors in interest of the respondents by the predecessors in interest of the owners, recorded in the Revenue records and after gifting away the land they had no right or interest in the property as the gift was absolute and un-resumable in reply filed to the petition filed by the respondents under Section 30 of the Act, the appellants admitted that the petitioners are Dohlidhars on land under the acquisition on account of Punarth. However, it was sought to be claimed that the Dohli was granted for carrying out certain services, which the respondents failed to carry out and accordingly the land had reverted back to the proprietors/owners.
10. Even in the evidence led the factum that the Dohli was a kind of Punarth was admitted though it was sought to be stated that the respondents were to carry out certain services in which they have failed. No terms of Dohli as such were produced on record to show that.
11. As per the Customary Law relied upon by the learned court below a Dohli as Pukhata given Punarth cannot be taken back. In the present case it is admitted by the appellants that the land was given Punarth. Once the land was given as absolute gift, in terms of the law laid down by this court in Dharamvir's case (supra) the Dohlidhar become absolute owner thereof with no right of reversion with the owner of the land. Accordingly, no illegality has been committed by R.F.A. No. 1408 of 1992 [4] the court below in accepting the claim of the respondents." If the facts of the present case are considered in the light of enunciation of law, referred to above, in the jamabandi for the year 1981-82 (Ex. P1), it was specifically mentioned therein that Dholidars are in possession of the land as Bila Lagan Bawajah Purnath. Once from the revenue record produced on record, it has been established by the appellants that Dohli was given to them as Purnath, there was no reason for not holding them entitled to the entire amount of compensation. The learned court below has committed an illegality in directing apportionment of compensation amongst the appellants and the respondent.
Accordingly, the impugned award is set aside and it is held that the appellants are entitled to receive the entire amount of compensation on account of acquisition of land in their possession.
The impugned award of the learned court below is modified to the extent mentioned above and appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
(Rajesh Bindal) Judge 7.9.2010 mk