PETITIONER: COL. SIR HARINDER SINGH BRAR B. BAHADUR Vs. RESPONDENT: BIHARILAL DATE OF JUDGMENT18/03/1994 BENCH: VENKATACHALA N. (J) BENCH: VENKATACHALA N. (J) RAMASWAMY, K. CITATION: 1994 SCC (4) 538 JT 1994 (3) 348 1994 SCALE (2)296 ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT:
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
VENKATACHALA, J.- Bihari Lal was a tenant of 246 kanals 18
marlas of land of the Village Ballabhgarh in erstwhile
Punjab State, now in Haryana State. He got a right to
purchase that land from its landowner, Harinder Singh, since
such right was conferred upon him by Section 18 of the
Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, – ‘the Tenures
Act’ for short. That on 2-3-1961, he made an application
for such purchase before the Assistant Collector of First
Grade Ballabhgarh – the authority empowered to decide on the
right to purchase and determine the purchase price. The
Assistant Collector granted that application by his order
dated 3-3-1963 recognising the tenant’s right to purchase
224 kanals 18 marlas of the said land and determining its
purchase price, besides ordering deposit of that purchase
price, either in a lump sum or in four equal six-monthly
instalments, so that the same may be paid to the landowner.
The tenant who chose to deposit the first instalment of that
purchase price, deposited the same on 12-3-1963, well before
the time allowed therefore. The said order of the Assistant
Collector made, recognising the right of purchase of the
land by the tenant, became final, when the Financial
Commissioner by his order dated 9-12-1965, dismissed the
revision petition of the landowner questioning the tenant’s
right of purchase, in that, that order of the Financial
Commissioner was not got set aside by the landowner from any
superior forum. However, the order of the Assistant
Collector dated 3-3-1963, relating to purchase price, which
527
was required to be redetermined by appellate remand order of
Collector as affirmed by the revisional order dated 9-12-
1965 of the Financial Commissioner, was indeed, redetermined
by the Assistant Collector by his order dated 20-9-1968.
But, such redetermination of the purchase price was confined
to the portion of the said land which was not by then
acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – ‘the L.A.
Act’ for short. However, the Commissioner, by his order
dated 19-8-1969, made in second appeal arising from the said
order of the Assistant Collector, held that the rate of
purchase price of portion of land redetermined by the
Assistant Collector shall extend to the whole land, the
purchase of which was allowed by the Assistant Collector, by
his earliest order dated 3-3-1963.
2.In the meanwhile, that on 3-8-1961 a notification under
Section 4(1) of the L.A. Act had come to be published in
Haryana State Gazette, proposing acquisition of 25 kanals 2
marlas out of the said 224 kanals 18 marlas of land, which
had been allowed to be purchased by the tenant according to
Assistant Collector’s order dated 3-3-1963. Possession of
the land proposed for acquisition was also taken by the Land
Acquisition Collector (L.A. Collector) from the tenant on
14-10-1961, resulting in vesting of that land in the State
of Haryana, in that, such possession was taken under Section
17(1) of the L.A. Act. Subsequently, on 14-10-1961, the
L.A. Collector, who made an award under Section II of the
L.A. Act, determined the compensation payable for the
acquired land of 25 kanals 2 marlas as Rs 26,271.00 and paid
the whole compensation to the tenant. The landowner, who
had claimed the whole amount of compensation, feeling
aggrieved by the award of the L.A. Collector and the payment
of whole compensation to the tenant, made an application to
the L.A. Collector under Section 18 of the L.A. Act, for
making a reference to the Court of Additional District
Judge, Gurgaon for its decision under Section 30 of the L.A.
Act. That Court, by its Judgment and decree dated 29-10-
1965 held that the landowner alone was entitled to the whole
of compensation awarded for the said land by the L.A.
Collector, on its view that the acquired land had vested in
the State Government before the tenant could become its
deemed owner under sub-section (4) of Section 18 of the
Tenures Act by depositing its purchase price, as allowed by
the Assistant Collector by his order dated 3-3-1963, while
the landowner was still its owner. In the tenant’s first
appeal preferred against that judgment and decree before the
High Court of Punjab and Haryana, a learned Single Judge of
that Court allowed that appeal partly, on his view that the
compensation awarded for the acquired land was apportionable
between the landowner and the tenant in the ratio of 3:1,
thinking that the amount so apportionable to the landowner
would be more or less the purchase price payable for the
land by the tenant under subsections (2) and (3) of Section
18 of the Tenures Act. But in the Letters Patent Appeal
preferred by the tenant in the same court against the
judgment and decree of learned Single Judge, a Division
Bench by its judgment and decree dated 20-8-1979 rendered
following its earlier judgment in a similar matter, allowed
that appeal partly, holding that the landowner’s entitlement
to compensation awarded for the said land acquired under the
L.A. Act, had
528
to be limited to the amount of compensation which was liable
to be paid as purchase price by the tenant, as determined
under sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 18 of the Tenures
Act. It is that judgment and decree of the Division Bench
of the High Court which is the subject of present Civil
Appeal No. 540 of 1980.
3.After the said acquisition, that on 8-9-1966, another
notification under Section 4(1) of the L.A. Act had come to
be published in Haryana State Gazette, proposing acquisition
of 151 kanals and 2 marlas of land out of 224 kanals 4
marlas of land which had been allowed to be purchased by the
tenant according to Assistant Collector’s order dated 3-3-
1963 on the purchase application made by the tenant and for
the purchase of which the first instalment of purchase price
had come to be deposited by the tenant on 12-3-1963. The
L.A. Collector determined the compensation payable for the
land so acquired in a sum of Rs 3,24,133.25 by his award
dated 4-4-1968 made under Section It of the L.A. Act.
Pursuant to that award, tile L.A. Collector took possession
of the land so acquired on 8-4-1968, on which date the
acquired land vested absolutely in the State of Haryana by
operation of Section 16 of the L.A. Act, Rs 3,24,133.25, the
amount determined as compensation for the acquired land by
the award of the L.A. Collector, was also paid by him in its
entirety to the landowner, Harinder Singh. On references
received by the Court of the Additional District Judge,
Gurgaon under Section 18 of the L.A. Act, to decide, on the
enhanced compensation claimed and on the dispute as to
whether the tenant or the landowner of the acquired land was
entitled to get the compensation payable for that land, that
court by its judgment and decree dated 15-2-1971, while
enhanced the compensation payable for the acquired land held
that the entire amount of compensation payable for the
acquired land was liable to be paid to the tenant Bihari
Lal, in that he had become the deemed owner of the acquired
land on 12-3-1963 when he deposited the first instalment of
the purchase price pursuant to the order dated 3-3-1963 of
the Assistant Collector made on his purchase application.
According to that court when once the tenant, by making the
deposit of first instalment of the purchase price on 12-3-
1963, became the deemed owner of the tenanted land from that
day because of the legal fiction created under sub-section
(4) of Section 18 of the Tenures Act, redetermination of
purchase price of land, if any, made by the authorities
under the Tenures Act could not bring about any adverse
effect on the deemed ownership of land got by the tenant.
However, the landowner, Harinder Singh, preferred regular
first appeal, RFA No. 345 of 1971 against the said judgment
and decree of the Court of Additional District Judge,
Gurgaon before the High Court. But, a Division Bench of the
High Court dismissed that appeal by its judgment and decree
dated 2-5-1979. It is that judgment and decree of the
Division Bench of the High Court, which is the subject of
present Civil Appeal No. 3288 of 1979.
4.Questions requiring our consideration in deciding the
present appeals, having regard to the facts which have given
rise to them, could be set out thus:
529
(i) Does a landowner of land which could be
purchased by a tenant under Section 18 of the
Tenures Act, cease to be its landowner and
consequently cease to have any interest in it,
on such tenant depositing according to sub-
section (4) there of, its purchase price or
first instalment of its purchase price fixed
by the Assistant Collector, and becoming its
deemed owner as envisaged thereunder.
(ii)If a land which its tenant was entitled
to purchase under Section 18 of the Tenures
Act had come to be vested in the State by
reason of its acquisition under the L.A. Act
before such tenant became its deemed owner as
envisaged under sub-section (4) of Section 18
of the Tenures Act, could the landowner of
that land have made a claim for payment of
compensation payable therefor under the L.A.
Act and if such a claim had been made, what
could be regarded as his entitlement in the
amount of such compensation.
We shall now proceed to consider the said questions in the
light of contentions of learned counsel raised, for and
against them.
Re: Question (i)
5. Since this question pertains to the result that flows
from the exercise by a tenant of his right to purchase the
tenanted land from its landowner under Section 18 of the
Tenures Act, need to consider it on the basis of the
provisions in that section, arises. The provisions insofar
as they bear on the question are, therefore, reproduced:
“18. Rights of certain tenants to purchase
land.- (1) Notwithstanding anything to the
contrary contained in any law, usage or
contract, a tenant of a landowner other than a
small landowner-
(i) who has been in continuous occupation of
the land comprised in his tenancy for a
minimum period of six years, or …
shall be entitled to purchase from the
landowner the land so held by him
Provided…
Provided further ….
(2)A tenant desirous of purchasing land under sub-section
(1) shall make anapplication in writing to an Assistant
Collector of First Grade having jurisdiction over the land
concerned, and the Assistant Collector, after giving notice
to the landowner and to all other persons interested in the
land and after making such inquiry as he thinks fit, shall
determine the value of land which shall be the average of
the price obtaining for similar land in the locality during
10 years immediately preceding the date on which the
application is made.
(3) The purchase price shall be three-fourths of the value
of land as so determined.
530
(4)(a) The tenant shall be competent to pay
the purchase price either in a lump sum or i
n
six-monthly instalments not exceeding ten in
the manner prescribed.
(b) On the purchase price or the first
instalment thereof, as the case may be,being
deposited, the tenant shall be deemed to have
become the owner of the land, ….
(c) If a default is committed in the payment
of any of the instalments, the entire
outstanding balance shall, on application by
the person entitled to receive it, be
recoverable as arrears of land revenue……
6. The language employed in sub-section (1) of Section 18,
as could be seen, is unequivocal as regards entitlement of a
tenant to purchase land comprised in his tenancy from his
landowner. A tenant desirous of purchasing land, according
to his entitlement under sub-section ( 1), if makes an
application therefor before the Assistant Collector of First
Grade having jurisdiction over such land as required by sub-
section (2) thereof, such Assistant Collector is enjoined
thereunder to determine the value of land comprised in the
tenancy after notice to the landowner and others who may be
concerned with it. Further, according to that subsection
the value to be determined for such land is required to be
only the average of the price obtaining for similar land in
the locality during ten years immediately preceding the date
on which application for its purchase was made. When the
value of the tenanted land is so determined as required by
sub-section (2) thereof, its purchase price payable by the
tenant would be three-fourth of such value as specified in
sub-section (3) thereof. Clause (a) of sub-section (4)
thereof entitles the tenant to pay the purchase price either
in a lump sum or instalments to be fixed in that behalf.
Then, clause (b) of sub-section (4) of Section 18, declares
in unequivocal terms that the tenant shall be deemed to
become the owner of the land on the purchase price or the
first instalment thereof, as the case may be, being
deposited. When a tenant becomes a deemed owner of the land
comprised in his tenancy by deposit of either the purchase
price or the first instalment thereof, because of the legal
fiction created under clause (b) of sub-section (4) of
Section 18, it follows as a necessary corollary, that such
land’s landowner till deposit can no longer be regarded as
its landowner. In other words, from the moment the tenant
deposits the purchase price or the first instalment thereof
payable towards the purchase of the land comprised in his
tenancy, the landowner of that land ceases to have the
interest which he had in it as such landowner till then,
inasmuch as, no provision is found in the Tenures Act which
allows him to continue to have thereafter any kind of
interest whatsoever in that land. Moreover, since sub-
section (5) [sic (4)(c)] of Section 18 entitles the
landowner to make an application merely for recovery from
the tenant of purchase money payable in instalments, as
arrears of land revenue, it is made obvious that the
instalments of purchase money payable by tenant for the
531
land comprised in his tenancy is not even made a charge on
that land, to and any claim of interest by such landowner,
against such land.
7. That a tenant becomes a deemed owner of land comprised
in his tenancy by deposit of either the purchase money or
first instalment thereof as declared by clause (b) of sub-
section (4) of Section 18, was not disputed by learned
counsel for the appellant. It was, however, strenuously
argued for the appellant that the tenant cannot become the
deemed owner by deposit of the purchase money or first
instalment thereof as determined by the Assistant Collector,
but becomes such deemed owner when he deposits the higher
purchase price determined in appeal and revision filed by
the appellant before the authorities. He sought to obtain
support for that argument from the judgment of this Court in
Bishan Singh v. Khazan Singh’ and the judgment of the Privy
Council in Deonandan Prashad Singh v. Ramdhari Chowdhril.
8. We are unable to find any merit in the argument
advanced on behalf of the appellant. Neither the judgment
of Privy Council nor the judgment of this Court from which
support was sought for the argument, can furnish such
support.
9. In Deonandan Prashad Singh case2 decided by the Privy
Council, the facts were these. A Subordinate Judge had made
a pre-emption decree in respect of certain property. On the
basis of that decree the pre-emptors were put in possession
of that property from 1900 to 1904. That pre-emption decree
when was set aside by the High Court, the original purchaser
of that property remained its possession and was in such
possession between 1905 and 1909. Thereafter, in 1908, when
the Privy Council reversed the decree of the High Court and
made a decree recognising the pre-emptor’s right to purchase
the property at a hi-her purchase price than that fixed by
the Subordinate Court, the pre-emptors, paid the extra price
in 1909 and took possession of the property from the
original purchaser. In this situation, the pre-emptor
sought to get mesne profits in respect of the property from
its original purchaser between 1904 and 1909, the period
during which he was in its possession. Whether the pre-
emptors were entitled to mesne profits for the period
between 1905 and 1909, (the period during which the judgment
of the High Court was in force), was the question that again
came up for decision by the Privy Council. The Privy
Council held that the pre-emptors were not entitled to get
mesne profits of the property for the period between 1904
and 1909, on its reasoning:
“It, therefore, follows that where a suit is
brought, it is on payment of the purchase-
money on the specified date that the plaintiff
obtains possession of-the property, and, until
that time, the original purchaser retains
possession and is entitled to the rents and
profits. This was so held in the case of
Deokinandlan v. Sri Ram3 and there Mahmud, J.,
.lm0
1 AIR 1958 SC 838
2 AIR 1916 PC 179: 44 IA SO: 32 MLJ 459
3 ILR 12 All 234
532
whose authority is well recognised by all,
stated that it was only when the terms of the
decree were fulfilled and enforced that the
persons having the right of pre-emption become
owners of the property, that such ownership
did not vest from the date of sale,
notwithstanding success in the suit, and that
the actual substitution of the owner of the
preempted property dates with possession under
the decree.”
10.In Bishan Singh case’ this Court had to decide as to
when a decreeholder in a conditional pre-emption decree,
becomes the owner of the property in the place of the
original vendee of such property. On the authority of the
judgment of the Privy Council in Deonandan Prashad case2 it
was held by this Court that the pre-emptor is not
substituted in the place of the original vendee till
conditions laid down in the decree were fulfilled. We are
unable to understand, how the said judgments of the Privy
Council and this Court, which decided on the question of
pre-emptors becoming owners of lands in the places of
original vendees on the well-settled authority of preemptors
becoming owners of lands in the place of original vendees
according to pre-emption decrees, could support the argument
of learned counsel for the appellant, that under the Tenures
Act the tenant becomes the owner of the tenanted land when
enhanced purchase price if any, is deposited or paid to
landowner. The argument overlooks the fact that purchase
price and its first instalment to be deposited by the tenant
under the Tenures Act is that fixed by the Assistant
Collector, for the tenant to become its deemed owner.
Question of entitlement to possession of tenanted land
cannot be disputed while the question which arises in pre-
emption decrees is the time at which the pre-emptors become
entitled to such possession. As to when the tenant who is
entitled to purchase land comprised in his tenancy becomes
the owner has, therefore, to be decided according to what is
provided for in the relevant provisions of the Tenures Act
itself and not with reference to pre-emptors’ right of
ownership to property under pre-emption decrees. Relevant
provisions in the Tenures Act, to which we have already
adverted are contained in Section 18 thereof and could be
even reiterated to avoid ambiguity. Clause (a) of sub-
section (4) of Section 18 gives the option to the tenant to
deposit purchase price or first instalment thereof as fixed
by the Assistant Collector. Because of the legal fiction
created by clause (b) of subsection (4) of that section,
when once the purchase price or the first instalment of
purchase money, as specified by the Assistant Collector, is
deposited, such tenant becomes the deemed owner of the land
comprised in his tenancy. Hence, there can arise no room
for any doubt that a tenant who is in possession of the
property, because of the deposit of purchase price he makes,
becomes the absolute owner, displacing the landowner’s
interest in such land, possessed till then. Clause (c) of
sub-section (4) of Section 1 8 when states that the default
on the part of the tenant in making instalments of purchase
price, will allow the person entitled to the same to recover
it as arrears of revenue, it becomes clear that the
intendment of the Act is not to postpone the right of the
tenant to become the owner of the land comprised in his
tenancy on account of non-payment of purchase price even if
a higher
533
purchase price is fixed by Appellate or Revisional
Authority. Moreover, when the object of tenancy
legislation, as well settled, is to make the tenant, the
tiller of the land, its owner, the beneficial provisions
which are made thereunder to confer ownership rights on
tenants, cannot receive a construction which results in
either postponing or defeating the right of ownership
conferred on tenants in respect of their tenanted lands. As
the acceptance of the argument of the learned counsel of the
appellant is bound to have the effect of defeating the
object of the provisions in the Tenures Act avowedly made by
the legislature for conferring right of ownership of land on
its tenants, we find it difficult to accept it. However, it
is made clear that if there was a deposit of purchase price
or first instalment thereof made by a tenant when the
operation of the order relating to fixation of purchase
price was stayed by competent authority or court, such
deposit could not have made the tenant a deemed owner. Our
answer to the question under consideration, therefore, is
that a landowner of land which could be purchased by a
tenant under Section 18 of the Tenures Act ceases to be its
landowner and consequently ceases to have any interest in
such land, on such tenant depositing according to sub-
section (4) thereof, its purchase price or first instalment
of its purchase price as fixed by Assistant Collector and
becoming its deemed owner as envisaged thereunder.
Re: Question (ii)
11.Since this question pertains to the landowner’s
entitlement of compensation awardable for tenanted land
acquired under the L.A. Act before its tenant becomes its
deemed owner under Section 18 of the Tenures Act, it
requires to be answered on the basis of the relevant
provisions both in the L.A. Act and the Tenures Act. That a
landowner loses every interest he had in respect of a land
when its tenant becomes its deemed owner, as envisaged under
sub-section (4) of Section 18 of the Tenures Act, is pointed
out by us already while answering question (i). What
therefore, requires our consideration in dealing with the
present question is, whether a landowner would be entitled
to compensation awarded for a tenanted land when it is
acquired under L.A. Act before the tenant of such land
becomes its deemed owner under sub-section (4) of Section 18
of the Tenures Act, and if so, what –an be regarded as his
entitlement in the amount of such compensation.
12.Since we are concerned with the compensation awardable
for a land quired under the L.A. Act before its amendment by
Central Act 68 of 1984, compensation awardable for land
acquired under the unamended L.A. ct, could be said to
comprise of the following components:
(i) The market value of the land at the date
of publication of the notification under
Section 4(1) of the L.A. Act.
(ii)The damage sustained by a person
interested by reason of taking of standing
crops or trees which may be on the land at the
time of Collector’s taking possession thereof.
534
(iii)The damage, if any sustained by the
person interested at the time of Collector’s
taking possession of the land by reason of
severing of such land from his other land.
(iv)The damage, if any, sustained by the
person interested at the time of Collector’s
taking possession of the land, by reason of
the acquisition injuriously affecting his
other property, moveable or immovable, in any
other manner, or his earnings.
(v) If in consequence of the acquisition of
the land by the Collector the person
interested is compelled to change his
residence or place of business, the reasonable
expenses, if any, incidental to such change,
and
(vi)The damage, if any, bona fide resulting
from diminution of the profits of land between
the time of the publication of the declaration
under Section 6 and the time of Collector’s
taking possession of the land.
13. We could add to the component of the market value of
the land in item (i) above, 15% being the consideration
payable for the compulsory nature of acquisition, that is,
solatium. Since interest becomes payable for delayed
payment of compensation after the Collector takes possession
of the acquired land such interest, if accrued, has to be
added to each component of compensation. The compensation
awardable since comprises of the said components every
person entitled to obtain any or all the components of the
compensation, becomes entitled to make a claim as regards
his interest ill the land and the component of compensation
awardable thereto. There cannot be any doubt nor was it
disputed that the landowner possesses certain interest ill
the acquired tenanted land, if it is acquired under the L.A.
Act and vested in the State before its tenant becomes its
deemed owner under sub-section (4) of Section 18 of the
Tenures Act. Landowner could claim the component of
compensation or any portion thereof according to the nature
of interest possessed by him prior to the acquisition and
vesting of the land under the L.A. Act. The composition of
each of the components of compensation adverted to by us are
seen, the landowner can make no claim for the components of
compensation under items (ii) to (vi), in that, those
components of compensation could become payable only to a
tenant who would have suffered damages awardable thereunder.
However, if regard is had to the nature of interest of
landowner comprised in the tenancy of a tenant, a claim
could be made by him for the component of compensation of
market value in item (i) and solatium and interest payable
thereon. The question which, then, needs our consideration
is, whether the landowner who, as owner of the tenanted land
before its acquisition and vesting under the L.A. Act, could
claim the whole component of compensation in item (i) and
solatium and interest awardable thereon. Here, comes the
nature of interest which the landowner possessed in the
tenanted land at the time of its acquisition and its vesting
in the State under the L.A. Act. It cannot be gainsaid,
that a landowner of tenanted land, to the purchase of which
a tenant
535
had become entitled under Section 18 of the Tenures Act,
could be anything other than the purchase price payable for
purchase of it under the Act, particularly, when a tenant
had made an application for such purchase availing the right
conferred upon him in that regard under Section 18 of the
Tenures Act. If at the time of acquisition and vesting of
the tenanted land under the L.A. Act, the landowner’s
entitlement from the tenant was such land’s purchase price,
his interest, having regard to its nature, could only be in
the component of compensation consisting of market value of
the land adverted to in item (i) and solatium and interest
payable thereon and nothing beyond it. Therefore, such a
landowner could only lay his claim for the amount of the
purchase price out of the component of such compensation and
limited to the amount of purchase price. However, it was
contended on behalf of the appellant that the landowner
would become entitled to three fourths of the amount of
compensation awardable for the land acquired even though the
tenant was entitled to its purchase under the Tenures Act.
In support of the submission, reliance was placed on the
observations made by a learned Single Judge of the High
Court in his judgment – the subject matter of one of the
present appeals, which read, thus:
“1 think the Punjab Security of Land Tenures
Act itself appears to afford some guidance in
the matter. Section 18(3) prescribes the
purchase price to be paid by the tenant at
three-fourths of the value of the land as
determined by Section 18(2). It means that
the interest of the landowner is assessed at
three-fourths and the interest of the tenant
is assessed at one-fourth. The value of the
land as determined under Section 18(2) may be
more or less than the value of the land on the
date of the notification of acquisition. But
that makes no difference. What is important
is that the interests of the landowner and the
tenant are fixed at three-fourths and one-
fourth of the value of the land. On that
basis, 1 direct the apportionment of the
compensation between the appellant and the
first respondent in the ratio of 1:3.”
The said observation of the learned Single Judge, it must be
said, with great respect to him, is based on misconstruction
of the provisions of sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 18
of the Tenures Act. The value of the land envisaged under
sub-section (2) is not the market value of the land but the
value of the land which should be the average price of land
in the neighbourhood during 10 years preceding the date of
making of the application by the tenant for purchase of
land. What sub-section (3) says, is that the purchase price
of the tenanted land must be three-fourths of the value of
the land determined under subsection (2), which means that
the value of the tenanted land could only be three-fourths
of the average value of the neighbouring land during ten
years preceding the date Of making of the application by the
tenant for purchase. Here is a statutory measure required
to be adopted to find out the purchase price of tenanted
land and not the supposed market value of that land as on
the date of making of the application for purchase. If that
be so, we are unable to understand how the market value of
the land which will be far different from the statutory
value of the land could be regarded as the
536
same, as has been done by the learned Single Judge. Hence,
the contention raised on behalf of the appellant that the
landowner would be entitled to three-fourths of the market
value of the land, becomes unsustainable. If we have regard
to the provisions under sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section
18 of the Tenures Act, rightly adverted to by the learned
Single Judge, the amount of compensation to which a
landowner becomes entitled can only be the purchase price
which he would be entitled under the said provisions for his
land, which the tenant had a right to purchase thereunder.
If the purchase in favour of the tenant was over, as
indicated in sub-section (5) (sic) of Section 18, the
purchase price, it must be kept in mind, could have been
recovered by the landowner as arrears of revenue.
Therefore, in our view, the tenant could have been entitled
to get out of the component of compensation awardable as
market value in Item (i) referred to above and the solatium
and interest payable thereon, only that amount of
compensation which could be equivalent to the purchase price
liable to be paid by the tenant to the landowner under
Section 18 of the Tenures Act and nothing more or less.
Hence, our answer to the question under consideration is,
that if a tenanted land which its tenant was entitled to
purchase under Section 18 of the Tenures Act did vest in the
State by reason of its acquisition under the L.A. Act before
he became its deemed owner as envisaged under sub-section
(4) of Section 18 of the Tenures Act, the landowner of that
tenanted land could have made a claim for compensation
awardable therefor under the L.A. Act and his entitlement
out of the said compensation could only be that falling in
the component of compensation in item (i), the market value
of that land together with solatium and interest, however,
limited to the amount of purchase price which he was
entitled to get for the land under Section 18 of the Tenures
Act and nothing more or less.
14.We shall now turn to the facts leading to the present
appeals for deciding them in the light of the answers given
by us for the questions which arose for our consideration.
15.The facts which have led to landowner’s appeal bearing
C.A. No. 540 of 1980, show that 25 kanals 2 marlas out of
224 kanals 18 marlas of land respecting which Bihari Lal,
the tenant, became a deemed owner on 12-3-1963 under sub-
section (4) of Section 18 of the Tenures Act, had come to be
acquired and vested in the State under the L.A. Act on
14-10-1961 earlier to the tenant becoming its deemed owner.
If that be so, if regard is had to the questions answered by
us, Harinder Singh, the landowner had become entitled to get
out of the compensation awarded for the said land under the
L.A. Act, an amount equivalent to its purchase price. If
that amount is not taken by Harinder Singh from the deposits
made by Bihari Lal, the tenant, as the purchase price of
that land under the Tenures Act, or out of the compensation
awarded for that land under the L.A. Act, legal
representatives of Harinder Singh would be entitled to get
the same either from the compensation, if any available, or
from Bihari Lat.
16.Coming to the facts which have led to the landowner’s
appeal bearing C.A. No. 3288 of 1979, they show that 151
kanals 2 marlas of land out
537
of 224 kanals 18 marlas of land respecting which the tenant,
Bihari Lal, became the deemed owner on 12-3-1963 was
acquired and vested in the State on 8-4-1968, that is,
subsequent to the tenant becoming its deemed owner. If that
be so, according to the answers given by us to the questions
considered, the landowner had no right to make a claim for
compensation payable for that land under the L.A. Act,
inasmuch as he had lost all his interest in that land well
before the acquisition proceedings for acquiring that land
under the L.A. Act had commenced. Unfortunately, as is
disclosed from the facts leading to the appeal, Harinder
Singh, the landowner, had received the compensation of Rs
3,24,133.25 awarded for the said land by the Land
Acquisition Officer in his award made under Section 1 1 of
the L.A. Act on 4-4-1968, while our answers to questions
considered by us, make it clear that such amount of
compensation to which the landowner was not entitled, should
not have been received by him. Our aforesaid answers to
questions considered by us, also make it obvious that the
said amount of compensation should have been paid in its
entirety to the tenant, Bihari Lal, in that, it was he who
was entitled to that amount of compensation having become
the deemed owner of the said acquired land of 151 kanals 2
marlas. No doubt the third proviso to sub-section (2) of
Section 31 of the L.A. Act says, that nothing contained in
the section shall affect the liability of any person who may
receive the whole or any part of any compensation under the
Act, to pay the same to the person lawfully entitled
thereto. Therefore, it is obvious that the landowner,
Harinder Singh, is liable to pay a sum of Rs 3,24,133.25
received by him from the Land Acquisition Collector under
his award dated 4-4-1968, to the tenant, Bihari Lal. Since
Harinder Singh had the benefit of that amount to the
deprivation of its use by Bihari Lal, he has to make good
that amount to Bihari Lal, at least along with 6 per cent
interest from the date of its receipt by him to the date of
payment, if it is not already repaid, as urged by learned
counsel for Bihari La], the respondent. Further, as seen
from the record, the appellant, Harinder Singh, is dead and
his legal representatives are prosecuting the present
appeals. In this peculiar situation, we consider it just
and appropriate to direct that the amount liable to be paid
by Harinder Singh shall be regarded as a debt owed by
Harinder Singh to Bihari Lal and the same being payable from
the former to the latter, shall be a charge on the property
of the deceased, Harinder Singh, in the hands of his legal
representatives and Bihari Lal and his successors shall be
entitled to realise such debt by sale of such properties if
the same is not otherwise realised. In this regard, this
judgment shall be regarded as a decree which could be got
executed through the reference court, whichever is such
court that may have jurisdiction as on date. Such course is
adopted by us since we felt that there will be no
justification for driving Bihari Lal or his successors
interest, by resorting to separate proceedings after a lapse
of about 26 years.
17. Subject to what we have said to the liability of
Harinder Singh or his legal representatives to make good the
amount of compensation received under the award dated 4-4-
1968 of the Land Acquisition Collector, we
539
dismiss the present appeals. However, in the facts and
circumstances of the cases, we do not propose to make any
order as to costs.
