R.F.A. No. 2059 of 1984 [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(1) R.F.A. No. 2059 of 1984
Date of decision: September 05, 2008
Mangtu deceased through L.Rs.
.. Appellants.
v.
Than Singh deceased through L.Rs. and others
.. Respondents.
(2) R.F.A. No. 2125 of 1984
Sumera and others
.. Appellants.
v.
Than Singh deceased through L.Rs. and others
.. Respondents.
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL
Present: Mr. C. B. Goel, Advocate for the appellants.
Mr. M. S. Khaira, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Jaswant Jain, Advocate for the respondents.
Rajesh Bindal J.
This order will dispose of the above mentioned two appeals, as
the same arise out of common order of learned Additional District Judge
(II), Narnaul. However, the facts have been extracted from R.F.A. No. 2125
of 1984.
The appellants are before this Court aggrieved against the order
passed by the learned Court below in proceedings under Section 30 of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act’), whereby apportionment of
the compensation is in dispute.
Briefly, the facts are that in April, 1979, the State of Haryana
acquired 69.69 acres of land in Village Mukandpur Bassai, Tehsil Rewari,
District Mahendergarh for the purpose of construction of left embankment
of Massani Barrage by the the Irrigation Department. As per the statement
on Form 19, prepared by the Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the
Collector’), the particulars of the owners of the land acquired to whom the
R.F.A. No. 2059 of 1984 [2]
compensation was to be granted were available. The dispute arose before
the Collector at the time of disbursement thereof when Nain Sukh and
others, residents of Village Mukandpur Bassai, claimed entire compensation
amount including the compensation assessed qua the shares of Ram Sarup
and Kanhiya sons of Nandan son of Tota Ram, who had been recorded as
owners to the extent of 1/3rd share as gair bazran. It is the successors-in-
interest of Ram Sarup and Kanhiya who claimed the compensation to the
extent of their shares. After examining the matter in detail, the learned
Court below opined that the claim petition filed by Nain Sukh, Chandgi and
others was misconceived and the parties to the dispute were entitled to share
of compensation on account of the acquired land according to the
quantum of land owned by them.
Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that as per the
revenue record, Ram Sarup and Kanhiya were shown to be gair bazran. The
entire land was in possession of Nain Sukh and others. Once whereabouts of
Ram Sarup and Kanhiya sons of Nandan son of Tota Ram were not known,
their successors-in-interest were not entitled to any compensation
whatsoever. However, he did not dispute the fact that in the revenue record,
Ram Sarup and Kanhiya have been shown to be the co-sharers to the extent
of 1/3rd with the appellants.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents
submitted that the stand of the appellants in the objection petition filed
before the Court below was altogether different than the issue on which they
led evidence which cannot be considered at all as the same was beyond
pleadings. Once Ram Sarup and Kanhiya had been shown to be co-sharers
in the big chunk of land with the appellants, the appellants cannot claim
themselves to be in exclusive possession or even the ownership thereof as
any co-sharer remains in possession of the land on behalf of all others even
if any one of them has exclusive possession of a part of the land. There is no
question of adverse possession, abandonment or relinquishment of rights by
one co-owner in favour of the other co-owner even after the land was not
being cultivated by him. Reliance has been placed upon Kanhiya Shanker
and others v. Mohabata Sedhu and others, AIR 1960 Punjab 494; Gram
Panchayat Sidhbari, Tehsil Kangra v. Sukh Ram Dass, (1963) 65 P.L.R.
1043; Govindammal v. R. Perumal Chettiar & others, AIR 2007 SC 204 and
R.F.A. No. 2059 of 1984 [3]
P.T. Munichikkanna Reddy and others v. Revamma and others, AIR 2007
SC 1753.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
The details on Form No. 19 regarding amount of compensation
payable to the owners of the land, as prepared on the basis of revenue record
and as is noticed in the judgment of the Court, is extracted as under:
"Name of the owner Land acquired Net compensation
Ram Sarup, Kanhiya Khewat/Khatauni 46289-91-51 paise
ss/o Nand s/o Tota Ram No. 2/4
1/3 share gair bazran. Khasra No. 41
5/2, 6/1, 7/1/1
0-6 6-10 0-7
Nain Sukh s/o Gribu Khasra No. 42 Ram Sarup Kanhiya
s/o Jivraj 1/6 sharer 8, 9, 10 1/6 1/6
Paras Ram s/o Nodan 3-16,8-0, 8-0 6614-91 7714-91
s/o Gribu 11/48 share, 11/1, 12 Nain Sukh Paras Ram
Balwant, Ishwar, Kanwar 2-9, 6-18 1/6 11/48
Singh ss/o Gribu 7714-92 10608-02
43/16 share, Hari Ram, Total land Balwant Ishwar
Lila, partner, Phul Singh measuring 1/16 1/16
ss/o Sehaj Ram s/o Jai 34 K 17 M 2893-09 2893-09
Kishan 1/12 share. Chahi Kanwar Singh Hari Ram
1/16 1/48
2893-09 964-97
Lila Partap
1/48 1/48
964-37 964-37
Phul Singh 1/48
964-37
L.A. Case No. 61 of 1981 (Nain Sukh Vs. Than Singh)
Ram Sarup, Kanhiya, 2/4 46289-51
sons of Nandan son Khasra No. 41
of Tota 1/3 share 5/2 6/1
gair Hazran 0-6, 6-1
Nain Sukh s/o Gribu, 7/1/1, 42/8
son of Jivraj, Chotta 0-7 3-16
1/6 share
Paras Ram son of 9 10
Bodam s/o Gribu 11/48 8-0, 8-0
Balwant, Ishwar, 11/1, 18 7714-91, 7714-91
Kanwar Singh ss/o 2-9 5-18 Ram Sarup 1/6 Kanhiya 1/6
Nain Sukh s/o Gribu
8/16 share
total land 7714-92 10608-02
measuring 34K Nain Sukh 1/6 Paras Ram 11/48
37 marla Chahi
2893-09 2893-09
Balwant 1/16 Ishwar 1/16
2893-09 964-37
Kanwar Singh Hari
1/16 1/48
Lila 1/48, Partap 1/48, Phul Singh 1/48
964-37 964-37 964-37
R.F.A. No. 2059 of 1984 [4]
L.A. Case No. 62 of 1981 (Chander etc. vs. Than Singh etc.)
Ram Sarup, Kanhiya 7/26 110842-46
ss/o Nandan s/o Tota 30/1, 28
1/3 share gair 0-1, 13/2/16
Hazran 8-0
Chandgi, Surta 17
Mukhram 8-0
Zile, Ram Kala, Jit Ram, 18/1, 23/2, 24, 25
ss/o 1/16 share 3-4 5-4 8-0 8-0
15/220 Smt. Mihali, Pharto
Mehro, Roshani, Dharam 29/20, 21/3/2, 4, 5
Kaur, Ram Rati, Rattani 6-0, 7-05, 8-0 7-5
1/21 share
Ram Chander s/o Siboo 6 7 18473-74 18473-75
d/o Bansi 1/168 share, 5-8, 8-0 Ram Sarup 1/6 Kanhiya 1/6
Chhoti widow of Harnu 9896-94 9896-65
s/o Bansi 1/12 share, Chandgi 5, Surja 5
Vasi Deh Neej Kabzan 56 5-56
Hissa Gair Hazran
total land measuring 9896-65 9896-65
83K 9 M chahi Kukhram 5/56 Zile 5/56
9896-65 9896-65
Ram Kala 5/56 Jitram 5/56
659-77 659-77
Nihali 1/168 Pharto 1/168
169-77 659-78
Mehro 1/168 Roshani 1/168
659-78 659-78
Dharamkaur 1/168 Ram Rati 1/168
Rattani 1/168 659-78
659-78 Ram Chander 1/168
9236-87
1/12.”
A perusal of the details, as noticed above, shows that Ram
Sarup and Kanhiya have been shown to be the co-sharers in the land to the
extent of 1/3rd share, whereas rest of the land is owned by other co-sharers.
The contention of learned counsel for the appellants that an absentee co-
sharer in fact, does not remain owner of the land is totally misconceived. No
judgment taking a view to that effect has been cited. The settled principle is
that any co-sharer even in exclusive possession of the land holds the same
on behalf of all the co-sharers.
The plea set up by the appellants that in fact, the other co-
sharers had abandoned or relinquished their rights in favour of the
appellants cannot be accepted as such. Even the plea of adverse possession
against the other co-sharers also cannot be accepted. As held by Hon’ble the
Supreme Court in R. Perumal Chettiar’s case (supra), a simple long
R.F.A. No. 2059 of 1984 [5]
possession is not effective to oust a co-sharer from the title of the property
but something more positive is required to be done. There must be a hostile
open possession denial and repudiation of the rights of other co-owners and
this denial or repudiation must bring home to the co-owners. In the present
case, there is no such action on the part of the appellants in this direction.
In Md. Mohammad Ali (dead) by LRs v. Jagdish Kalita &
others, (2004) 1 SCC 271, Hon’ble the Supreme Court examined a series of
decisions on the question of adverse possession and after extracting the
legal propositions from various decisions, their Lordships concluded that
long and continuous possession by itself, it is trite, would not constitute
adverse possession. Even non-participation in the rent and profits of the
land to a co-sharer does not amount to ouster so as to give title by
prescription. A co-sharer, as is well settled, becomes a constructive trustee
of other co-sharer and the right of a person or his predecessors-in-interest is
deemed to have been protected by the trustees.
In Vidya Devi alias Vidyavati (dead) by LRs v. Prem Parkash
and others, (1995) 4 SCC 496, Hon’ble the Supreme Court held that when
no period of limitation is fixed for filing a suit for partition by a co-
bhumidhar against his other co-bhumidhars in respect of a joint holding, the
question of the other co-bhumidhar acquiring his title to such holding by
adverse possession for over 12 years can never arise.
For the reasons mentioned above, I do not find any merit in
these appeals. Accordingly, the same are dismissed.
(Rajesh Bindal)
Judge
September 05, 2008
mk