Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bhoop Singh Son Of Ram Sarup Resident Of ... vs Puran Son Of Kanhiya And Others on 3 October, 2012
Author: K. Kannan
Bench: K. Kannan
RFA No.741 of 1990 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
RFA No.741 of 1990
Date of Decision.03.10.2012
Bhoop Singh son of Ram Sarup resident of village Makandpur Basai, Tehsil
Bawal, District Mohindergarh and others
.....Appellants
Versus
Puran son of Kanhiya and others .....Respondents
2. RFA No.742 of 1990
Surat Ram son of Gordhan resident of village Makandpur Basai, Tehsil
Bawal, District Mohindergarh and others and others
.....Appellants
Versus
Puran son of Kanhiya and others .....Respondents
Present: Mr. C.B. Goel, Advocate
for the appellants.
Mr. Ajay Jain, Advocate
for the respondents.
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. Both the appeals are at the instance of persons, who stake the claim to entire amount of compensation as determined by the Collector. The reference for an adjudication for apportionment under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act came to be necessary at a time when the respondents were making claim for 1/3rd amount in terms of the revenue entries regarding co-ownership in respect of 1/3rd share. The appellants were contending that they had been in possession of the property for more than 100 years and the respondents and their predecessors have actually RFA No.741 of 1990 -2- abandoned their share. They also asserted that they never paid any rent or lease to the respondents at any point of time and that they had been in assertion of their own right to the property for all the 100 years. The respondents contended that their entitlement to 1/3rd share could not be denied at all, for the appellants had never denied their entitlement to a 1/3rd share in the property. It was their contention that they had carried out periodical improvements in the property and the appellants had been the beneficiary of such improvements. They also contended that after a mutation had been made from the name of their predecessor Nandan to their own names Ram Sarup and Kanhiya, the appellants had opposed the revenue entries but it was rejected. The contention, therefore, was that the appellants were not the owners of the entire property and they cannot deny the 1/3rd entitlement of the respondents.
2. Though it is not very clear that the reference itself was only for the claim to ownership of 1/3rd share, I am prepared to assume that both parties are willing to go by such an assumption. Learned counsel for the respondents asserts that the appellants had actually secured the 2/3rd amount of compensation determined and the entire adjudication was only with reference to denial of the defendants' 1/3rd right in the property. Learned counsel for the appellants would contend that when the specific contention was that they had been in possession for more than 100 years and it was also stated that they had never recognized the respondents as owners or paid any lease, the appellants ought to have been provided the entire amount of compensation. Learned counsel would urge that the revenue entries are themselves not proof of ownership and therefore, the mere fact that the respondents have been entered as co-owners of the property in respect of 1/3rd share ought not to be taken as concluding their RFA No.741 of 1990 -3- issue of ownership.
3. In a case where the exclusive assertion of rights of property had been made and the respondents would contend that the appellants have always recognized their 1/3rd share and the benefit of improvements that they had carried out on the land, the burden of proof of hostile assertion of title against the respondents is heavily on the appellants only. A revenue entry shall not conclude the issue of title but they have a value at least to the extent of providing an important link to ownership. It is not the appellants' contention that the entire extent of property had at all times stood only in their own names as owners. The appellants had been faced with the situation where the defendants and their predecessors had at all times been shown in the revenue records as owners of 1/3rd share and appellants' own attempt to have the mutation nullified did not fructify. A mere possession of the property cannot prove ownership and a person, who asserts exclusive ownership is bound to prove the same.
4. In this case, the evidence as regards the manner of enjoyment of the property and how the respondents were shown to be the registered owners of 1/3rd share by purchase was spoken by RW-1, who was aged 65 years and who had stated about the fact that he had known the respondents' predecessor Nandan when he was old and after him the property came to the ownership of Ram Sarup and Kanhiya. Both Ram Sarup and Kanhiya had died and their son Gyasi Ram had also died. Gyasi Ram had three sons Than Singh, Amar Singh and Ramji Lal and one daughter Asharfi. Kanhiya had one son Puran and two daughters Raghbiro and Gaindi. His evidence was to the effect that Nandan was the original habitant of Basai and they had started living in village Bedhan prior to his birth. He was cross-examined to elicit whether he had known Nandan RFA No.741 of 1990 -4- visiting the village to which he answered in the affirmative. PW2 was one of the respondents and he referred to their own periodical visits in the village and management of property by his father and grandfather. He also spoke about the fact that the mutation stood transferred in his name after the life time of the grandfather and father and the petitioners had raised their objections before the SDM, Rewari to no avail. He has also made reference to pendency of some litigation but however, no details of such litigation are brought before the Court.
5. If the cases of entitlement to a share were to depend wholly only on the basis of possession then there was really nothing for adjudication. The case requires to be adjudicated only in a situation where the respondents were shown to be registered as owners of the property and the petitioners are contending for an adverse title against the respondents. When the appellants' attempt to have the mutation annulled failed and the respondents also gave evidence with reference to their ancestors and their management, I will hold that to be sufficient to discredit the appellants' testimony and uphold the decision already made by the Reference Court that the appellants cannot deny 1/3rd share of the entire compensation awarded to the respondents.
6. I affirm the decisions made by the Reference Court and dismiss the appeals.
(K. KANNAN) JUDGE October 03, 2012 Pankaj*