TMI Blog2001 (3) TMI 1050X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... NTLA/278 dated 18.4.1991, issued under Section 6 of the Act, land measuring 1068.64 acres of village Jharsa Kanehi, Bindapur and Samaspur, was acquired by the Government of Haryana for public puposes. Award No. 8 of the year 1992-93 was given by Shri K.K. Sharma, the then Land Acquisition Collector, Gurgaon, regarding the land measuring 948.95 acres. Ram Rikh and others made a claim before the Land Acquisition Collector alleging that the Gram panchayat had no right or interest in the acquired land and prayed that the compensation regarding the Shamilat Deh land which was acquired by the State of Haryana, be given to them. The case of Ram Rikh and others was that they were entitled to get compensation regarding the land of Panchayat Deh which was acquired by the State of Haryana and that the Gram Panchayat was not entitled to get the compensation regarding the same. It was pleaded by Ram Kumar and Khem Ram that, Ram Kumar was the owner in possession as Gair Marusi of Khewat No. 149/188, Rect. No. 31, Killa No. 14/2(3-2) 17(8-0) 24(8-0) and Rect. No. 41, Killa No. 4(8-0), total measuring 27 kanals 2 marlas for more than thirty years. Khem Ram was owner in possession as Gair Marusi of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion to the extent of 3/4th share and this finding was given by the Court on the basis of the judgment of the Hpn'ble Supreme Court. Under issue No. 3, it was observed by the Court that since Smt. Bhagwati and others are Dholidars on the acquired area, therefore, it is a gift in their favour which is permissible according to law and custom. In these circumstances, they have become the full fledged owners and are entitled to the entire compensation. It may be mentioned here that Gram Panchayat-appellant is not disputing the finding of the Court on issue No. 3 but it is disputing the finding of the lower Court on issues No. 2 and 4 viza- vis the rights of Khem Ram and Ram Kumar and I shall confine my discussion on issues No. 2 and 4. During the pendency of this appeal, the appellant-Gram Panchayat, Kanehi, also filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. for permission to produce additional evidence in order to show that it is the owner of the property and that Ram Kumar and Khem Ram were never the tenants. According to the Gram Panchayat, Ram Kumar took the land on rent for a period of 2 years only i.e. for the year 1975 to 1977 and thereafter the land was leased out to di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and unless it satisfied the Court that the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred has refused to admit evidence which ought to have been admitted or the party seeking to produce additional evidence, establishes that notwithstanding the exercise of the due diligence, such evidence was not within his knowledge or could not, after the exercise of the diligence, be produced by him at the time when the decree appealed against was passed or the appellate Court requires any document to be produced or any witness to be examined to enable it to prolounce judgment, or for any other substantial cause. ( 10. ) At this juncture, the proposed additional evidence cannot be allowed to be placed on record as it would amount to filling of the lacunas. Even otherwise also, I will try to show that by the proposed additional evidence, the Gram Panchayat-appellant Kanehi is not going to improve its case. Therefore, I dismiss the application under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. ( 11. ) I have just stated above that by this judgment I shall confine my discussion on issues No.2 and 4 and the dispute between the Gram Panchayat on one side and S/Shri Ram Kumar and Khem Ram on the other side, is wheth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ary evidence, whether Shri Ram Kumar and Khem Ram were in posession of the land on the date of the acquisition and if so, in what capacity? ( 15. ) Ram Kumar has placed on record Khasra Girdawaries from Kharif 1975 to Rabi 1980 Ex. RD. From this document the possession of Shri Ram Kumar is established as Gair Marusi on payment of ₹ 2500/- per year. His possession is further established by way of Khasra Girdawari from Kharif 1980 to Rabi 1985 vide Ex. RE and from 1985 to 1990 vide Ex. FR. If the Gram Panchayat had been leasing out the land to different persons why those lessees had not been produced in the witness box. There is no entry in the Khasra Girdwari to show the possession of different persons other than the possession of Ram Kumar and Khem Ram. Also there is no evidence on the record that after 1979 Gram Panchayat had taken any proceedings under the Punjab Village Common Lands Act as applicable to the State of Haryana for the ejectment of these people. It is the categorical statement of Shri Ram Kumar RW4 that he was a Gair Marusi since the time immemorial and this part of the statement of Shri Ram Kumar has not been challenged by the Gram Panchayat in the cross-e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the record to show that the Gram Panchayat has passed any resolution to that effect or it has made a report against the Sarpanch that he had connived with his brother Ram Kumar. ( 19. ) On the contrary, there is categorical statement of Shri Khem Ram who appeared as RW-3 that he is the tenant. Earlier this land was dedicated to Piau and they used to maintain that Piau. There is no cross-examination upon the statement of Shri Khem Ram to that effect. Therefore, I have to accept the statement of Shri Khem Ram to be correct when he has not been cross-examined on this aspect. The statement of Shri Baljit Singh also supports the statement of Shri Khem Ram because this witness also admits the possession of Shri Khem Ram. When, it is established that the possession of Shri Khem Ram remained on killa No. 15 of Rect. No. 45 in the capacity of a tenant at the time of the acquisition, then he is entitled to the compensation in the same ratio as has been awarded to Shri Ram Kumar and the judgment of Mangat Ram's case (Supra), which has been relied upon by the trial Court as well as by me, entitles the tenant to claim compensation to the extent of 3/4th share. ( 20. ) Thus , the f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
