JUDGMENT
M.M. Kumar, J.
1. This is tenant’s appeal filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity ‘the Act’) challenging the order of Additional District Judge, Ambala dated 31.3.1987 holding that the tenant-appellant is entitled to apportionment to the extent of the third share of compensation in respect of the land acquired vide notification issued under Section 4 of the Act on 30.7.1979.
2. Brief facts of the case as discernible from the record as well as from the judgment of the Additional District Judge are that a notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 30.7.1979 for acquiring 50.89 acres of land for the purposes of development of Marshy area in between Dadupur and Tejewala for fish culture. The Land Acquisition Collector announced his award on 21.3.1980 awarding compensation @ Rs. 5760/- per acre for banjar salab and Rs. 1440/- per acre for Gair Mumkin land which included solatium. The acquired land included an area of 26 Kanals 4 Marias belonging to the ownership of Panchayat deh. This area in the jamabandis was recorded in cultivating possession of Joginder Singh the tenant-appellant who was described as co-sharer. Both Joginder Singh as well as Panchayat Deh asserted their claim to the compensation amount of Rs. 18,864/- excluding solatium.
3. Joginder Singh, tenant-appellant produced in evidence documents Exs.A1 to A5 copies of jamabandis commencing from 1.968-69 and Ex.A6 to A9 copies of khasra girdawaris for the year 1973-74 onwards. Reliance was also placed by the Patwari on mutation Ex.A10 showing that the land was mutated in favour of Fisheries Department. The tenant-appellant also produced AW2 Gurmail Singh son of Bawa Singh aged 75 years, a farmer from village Urjani and also produced Dalip Singh AW3 and Joginder Sigh AW4 in support of his claim. All these witnesses have orally stated with regard to possession of the tenant-appellant. The respondent, however, on the other hand had produced Kartar Singh, Sarpanch, RW1 who had stated that the land was shamlat deh and there was no river action resulting into possession of tenant-appellant. However, possession of the tenant-appellant was admitted by him.
4. The Additional District Judge after analysing the whole evidence reached the conclusion that the nature of the land is shamlat deh. The tenant-appellant is continuing in possession since 1969 and some of the entries show that he was a tenant at will. On the basis of the findings recorded by him the Additional District Judge applied the judgment rendered in C.W.P. No. 2191 of 1980 titled as Krishan Singh v. State of Haryana and Ors. , decided on 2.4.1984. Accordingly, one third apportionment has been awarded to the tenant-appellant although no finding has been recorded with regard to rights whether the tenant-appellant being tenant-at-will was entitled to acquire any proprietary right but yet on the basis of scanty evidence on record, the Learned Additional District Judge has followed the judgment in Krishan Singh’s case (supra) awarding one third apportionment to him.
5. Shri G.K. Chawla, learned counsel for the tenant-appellant has argued that once it has been shown that Gram Panchayat has never rented the land in dispute to the tenant-appellant and his possession is conceded then the entries of shamlat deh in the revenue record loose its significance. The learned counsel maintains that the land must be held as proprietar, land in the hands of the tenant-appellant. The learned counsel also submitted that the whole apportionment should have been given to the tenant appellant because once the finding has come that the tenant-appellant is a tenant-at-will then he is to be treated as a proprietor. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the statements made by AW1 and AW2 as well as RW1 to argue that the Gram Panchayat has never asserted its right over the land and merely on the basis of entries in the revenue record. No finding could have been recorded that the land is shamlat deli although in possession of the tenant-appellant. In support of his submission, the learned counsel has placed reliance on a judgment in the case of Ujagar Singh and Ors. v. G.P. Nangal, 1990 L.A.C.C. 401.
6. Shri B.B. Gupta, learned Additional Advocate General, Haryana for respondent No. 2 has supported the findings recorded by the learned Additional District Judge by arguing that the revenue record cannot be belied by the oral statements made by various witnesses and the presumption of truth raised in favour of the revenue record under Section 44 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 has not been sufficiently rebutted. According to the learned counsel it has been rightly found by the learned Additional District Judge on the basis of the evidence that the tenant-appellant came on the scene for the first time in year 1969. After that he claimed his possession on account of re-claimation which had accrued as a result of river action i.e. Bau ji Barmadgi or alluvion and deluvion. He has also argued that by virtue of entry in the year 1969 he would not become owner of the land in dispute. His status in the jamabandi for the year 1983-84 has been recorded as that of tenant-at-will and a presumption has been raised that even before the acquisition of the land in the year 1969 and thereafter his status continues to be that of a tenant at will and due recognition to that status has been given by the learned Additional District Judge by holding that he is entitled to apportionment to the extent of one third share.
7. I have thoughtfully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and am of the considered view that this appeal deserves to be dismissed. On the basis of Jamabandis Ex.A1 to A5 commencing from 1968-69 and copies of Khasra girdawaries Exs.A6 to A9 commencing from the year 1973-74 onwards a finding of fact could be recorded that the tenant-appellant had come in possession of the suit land in the year 1968-69. There are stray entries showing the tenant-appellant as a tenant-at-will as is evident from the jamabandi for the year 1983-84. Accordingly, an inference can be drawn in favour of the tenant-appellant that his possession is not unauthorised as has been held by this Court in the case of Bhartu v. Collector, 1987 Recent Rev. Reports 29. However, it will not be possible to treat him as an occupancy tenant for the purposes of conferring status of proprietor on him. In order to succeed, the tenant-appellant was required to prove that he* has acquired proprietory rights as a tenant-at-will within the meaning of Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietory Rights) Act, 1953. There are certain conditions specified under the 1955 Act before a declaration could be granted that an ocupancy tenant has become the proprietor. Such a declaration could only be given by the specified authorities under Section 77(3)(d) of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887. Sections 5, 6 and 8 of the 1887 Act defines the occupancy tenant and there is no declaration by the competent authority on record. Few stray entries and showing the tenant-appellant as tenant at will may not constitute safe basis for such a declaration. However, it would be reasonable, as has been held by the learned Additional District Judge, to hold that the tenant-appellant would be clothed with the status of a tenant preceding and succeeding the entries of 1983-84. It is also pertinent to mention that apart from claiming possession on the basis of entries made in the jamabandi for 1968-69 no other inference would be possible except that the tenant-appellant is a tenant-at-will.
8. I am further of the view that the order of the learned Additional District Judge awarding one third of the compensation does not deserve to be interfered. A word, however, would be necessary for applying the ratio of the judgment in the case of Krishan Singh v. Stale of Haryana and Ors. , C.W.P. No. 2191 of 1980, decided on 2.4.1984. In that case, the law laid down by this Court is that it is only where the tenant becomes entitled to re-purchase the land as a matter of right who was the tenant under the big land owner under Section 18 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 that one third apportionment could be given to such a tenant. In the present case despite the fact that no such finding has been recorded nor there is anything on the record to record a finding that the tenant-appellant has become entitled to re-purchase the land the Additional District Judge has awarded him one third of the amount. 1 have not been called upon to disturb the relief granted by the learned Additional District Judge. No appeal has been filed by the Gram Panchayat or the respondent-State. Therefore, I do not find any infirmity in the view taken by the Additional District Judge.
9. The argument of the learned counsel based on the judgment in Ujagar Singh’s case (supra) would not require any detailed consideration because in that case findings were recorded that parcel of land would not be covered by the definition of shamlat deh as defined in Section 2(g) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961. As a result of the finding, the big track of land was held to be under the ownership of the claimant and naturally compensation in respect of such parcel of land was given to the claimant. The judgment obviously has no application to the facts and circumstances of the instant case and therefore, the argument raised is liable to be rejected.
10. In view of the above, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed.