IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
FIRST APPEAL NO.287 OF 1990
Ranba s/o. Sattaji, ]..Appellants
aged 75 years, Occ. Agri.
R/o. Wasarni, Tal. & Dist. Nanded.
(Deceased)
1. Ahilyabai w/o. Prabhakar Kandharkar
Age. 42 years, Occ. Household,
R/o. Manaspuri, PO Bahadarpura,
Tq. Kandhar, Dist. Nanded.
(Daughter of deceased Ranba)
2. Girjabai w/o. Mariba Chitte
Age. 50 years, Occ. Household,
R/o. As above.
(Daughter of deceased Ranba)
3. Sou. Sarjabai w/o. Shankar Sonsare
Age. 49 years, Occ. Household,
R/o. Vasrani, Tq. Kandhar,
Dist. Nanded.
(Legal heir and daughter of deceased
Ranba s/o. Sattaji)
4. Shri Baba @ Munjaji s/o. Ranbaji
Gajbhare
Age. 50 years, Occ. Agri.
R/o. Vasraji, Tq. & Dist. Nanded
(Legal heir and son of deceased
Ranba s/o. Sattaji).
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra ]..Respondents
2. Pandu s/o. Narba,
Aged Major, Occ. Nil,
R/o. Wasarni, Tal. & Dist. Nanded
Shri N.N. Shinde, Advocate for the appellants.
Mrs. S.S. Autade, A.G.P. for respondent No.1/State.
Shri B.N. Patil h/f. Shri S.K. Kadam, Advocate for
respondent No.2.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:51:59 :::
( 2 )
CORAM : P.R. BORKAR,J.
RESERVED ON : 10.09.2008
PRONOUNCED ON : 16.09.2008
JUDGMENT :
. This is an appeal preferred by the person who
is dissatisfied with the order of apportionment of
compensation passed under Section 30 of the Land
Acquisition Act by the learned Civil Judge, Senior
Division, Nanded in L.A.R. No. 45 of 1987 decided on
31.07.1989.
2. In short it is case of appellant Ranba that
land Survey No.51/1 situated at village Vasarni, Tal.
& Dist. Nanded to the extent of 2 Hectares 54 R was
acquired by the Government and notification under
Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was published.
The final award was passed on 19.03.1987. Notices
were issued under Section 12 (2) of the Land
Acquisition Act to concerned land owners and original
appellant Ranba and respondent No.2 Pandu both filed
their claim before the Land Acquisition Officer.
3. It is further case of original appellant Ranba
that the land Survey No. 51/1 was originally owned by
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 13:51:59 :::
( 3 )
Vamanrao Ghansham Naik. Ranba was declared as the
protected tenant and purchaser under the provisions of
the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950
(hereinafter referred to as “H.T. & A.L. Act”). The
certificate under Section 38-E was issued in favour of
appellant Ranba and as such appellant Ranba alone is
entitled to the entire compensation amount of the
acquired land.
4. On the other hand it is case of respondent
No.2
original
Pandu
tenants
that his father Narba
of the land. Each had
and Ranba
1/2
were
share.
After death of Narba, as his son respondent No.2 Pandu
is entitled to 1/2 share. In the written statement
which was filed before the learned Civil Judge,
respondent No.2 Pandu has stated that though the land
was declared under Section 38-E of the H.T. & A.L.
Act in the name of Ranba – the uncle of respondent
No.2, 1/2 share thereof was under cultivation and
possession of respondent No.2 Pandu and remaining 1/2
share was in possession of appellant Ranba. Total
occupancy price was deposited by both jointly in the
office of Tahsildar, Nanded, but ownership certificate
was issued in the name of Ranba – paternal uncle of
respondent No.2 Pandu. At that time Ranba orally
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 13:51:59 :::
( 4 )
agreed to effect mutation of 1/2 share of the declared
portion in the name of Pandu. He also executed a bond
as “Watnipatra” (partition deed) on 30.03.1981 in
favour of Pandu on stamp paper in presence of panchas.
Half of the land continued to be in possession and
cultivation of respondent No.2 until acquisition.
Under the circumstances he is entitled to half amount
of the compensation.
5. It is argued vehemently by Adv. Shri N.N.
Shinde
the H.T.&
for the appellant that under the provisions of
A.L.Act, enquiries are made. Names of
protected tenants were declared. Objections were
called and thereafter proceedings under Section 38
were initiated. Respondent No.2 Pandu never raised
objection to the sale of land in the name of appellant
Ranba and as such he cannot have any more dispute over
the exclusive ownership of appellant Ranba. Reference
was made to sub-section 6(a) of Section 38 of the
H.T.& A.L. Act and it is argued that sale certificate
issued to a tenant declaring him to be the purchaser
of the land is conclusive evidence of the sale as
against land-holder and all persons interested
therein. The Civil Court has no jurisdiction to hold
that respondent No.2 is entitled to half share.
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 13:51:59 :::
( 5 )
6. The learned advocate for respondent No.2
heavily relied upon the entries in V.F. No. 7/12
extracts produced at Exh.27 and 28. He also argued
that the case sought to be made out now was never
advanced before the learned Civil Judge. In-fact, no
application or written submission was filed before the
learned Civil Judge. There was no contest before the
learned Civil Judge by appellant Ranba by filing any
pleading or application. He referred to para 6 of the
not
judgment in which it is specifically stated that Ranba
has filed say after receipt of reference in the
Court. However, he had filed say before Land
Acquisition Officer on 25.06.1987 and said say was
taken into consideration. It was also argued that no
evidence whatsoever was filed by Ranba in rebuttal of
the documentary evidence produced by respondent No.2
Pandu.
7. It is no more disputed that appellant Ranba
was uncle of respondent No.2 Pandu as observed in para
8 of judgment of the Trial Court. One Sattaji had
five sons, namely, Nivratti, Tukaram, Ranba, Narba,
Sakharam and Tukaram. Respondent No.2 Pandu is son of
Narba. The V.F. No. 7/12 extracts at Exh.27 and 28
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 13:52:00 :::
( 6 )
which are from 1960-61 to 1984-85 show that from
1960-61 both appellant Ranba and Narba – father of
respondent No.2 were shown to be joint tenants till
the year 1970-71. In 1971-72 for the first time Ranba
was shown to have been cultivating 1/2 portion of land
as a tenant and Narba was shown to be cultivating
remaining half of the land. The entries of the year
1972-73 to 1974-75 show both appellant Ranba and Narba
father of respondent No.2 as each cultivating half
portion of the land as tenants. Mode of cultivation
was
was
shown as “3”.
ig In the year 1975-76 name of
substituted in place of name of Narba and he
Pandu
was
shown to be in possession of half share as tenant and
said entry is continued till year 1984-85. For the
first time in 1985-86 name of CIDCO was entered (which
is acquiring body), as the owner and possessor. So,
continuous entries for 24-25 years which were never
challenged supported case of respondent No.2 Pandu
that respondent No.2 Pandu and his father were tenants
of half portion of the land. Earlier, there was joint
cultivation by Ranba and Narba and thereafter he
started cultivating half portion of the land.
8. It is true that sale certificate cannot be
challenged and it is conclusive proof of the statutory
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 13:52:00 :::
( 7 )
sale under the provisions of H.T.& A.L.Act. However,
the provisions of H.T.& A.L.Act do not prevent a joint
family from being tenant of a land. Similarly, it
does not prevent one or more persons jointly taking a
land on lease and thus becoming joint tenants. The
averments in the written submission filed by
respondent No.2 Pandu at Exh.19 in the Trial Court
regarding the occupancy price being paid by both
appellant Ranba and respondent No.2 – Pandu and about
promise by Ranba to Pandu to mutate half of the land
in his
partition
name
deed
ig and about subsequently
on 30.03.1981 were not
executing
controverted.
the
There is no denial of said averments either by way of
reply or by way of oral evidence. So, said pleadings
remained uncontroverted and as such admitted in the
facts of the present case. In absence of any reply or
evidence in rebuttal of averments in para 3 of Exh.19
filed by respondent No.2, it cannot be said that the
Trial Court has committed any error in holding that
the appellant and respondent No.2 were each entitled
to half share in the compensation awarded. Under the
circumstances of this case it can be inferred that the
sale certificate issued in the name of appellant Ranba
was obtained for himself and his nephew Pandu as both
were joint tenants of the land.
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 13:52:00 :::
( 8 )
9. In this view of the matter, this appeal
deserves to be dismissed. Hence, the first appeal is
dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs.
[P.R. BORKAR, J.]
snk/2008/SEP08/fa287.90
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:52:00 :::