{"id":64395,"date":"1994-03-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1994-03-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/col-sir-harinder-singh-brar-b-vs-biharilal-on-18-march-1994"},"modified":"2015-07-14T08:20:06","modified_gmt":"2015-07-14T02:50:06","slug":"col-sir-harinder-singh-brar-b-vs-biharilal-on-18-march-1994","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/col-sir-harinder-singh-brar-b-vs-biharilal-on-18-march-1994","title":{"rendered":"Col. Sir Harinder Singh Brar B. &#8230; vs Biharilal on 18 March, 1994"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Col. Sir Harinder Singh Brar B. &#8230; vs Biharilal on 18 March, 1994<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1994 SCC  (4) 538, \t  JT 1994 (3)\t348<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: V N.<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Venkatachala N. (J)<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nCOL. SIR HARINDER SINGH BRAR B. BAHADUR\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nBIHARILAL\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT18\/03\/1994\n\nBENCH:\nVENKATACHALA N. (J)\nBENCH:\nVENKATACHALA N. (J)\nRAMASWAMY, K.\n\nCITATION:\n 1994 SCC  (4) 538\t  JT 1994 (3)\t348\n 1994 SCALE  (2)296\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>The Judgment of the Court was delivered by<br \/>\nVENKATACHALA,  J.- Bihari Lal was a tenant of 246 kanals  18<br \/>\nmarlas\tof  land  of the Village  Ballabhgarh  in  erstwhile<br \/>\nPunjab\tState,\tnow  in Haryana State.\tHe got\ta  right  to<br \/>\npurchase that land from its landowner, Harinder Singh, since<br \/>\nsuch  right  was  conferred upon him by Section\t 18  of\t the<br \/>\nPunjab\tSecurity of Land Tenures Act, 1953, &#8211;  &#8216;the  Tenures<br \/>\nAct&#8217;  for short.  That on 2-3-1961, he made  an\t application<br \/>\nfor  such purchase before the Assistant Collector  of  First<br \/>\nGrade Ballabhgarh &#8211; the authority empowered to decide on the<br \/>\nright  to  purchase and determine the purchase\tprice.\t The<br \/>\nAssistant  Collector granted that application by  his  order<br \/>\ndated  3-3-1963 recognising the tenant&#8217;s right\tto  purchase<br \/>\n224  kanals 18 marlas of the said land and  determining\t its<br \/>\npurchase  price, besides ordering deposit of  that  purchase<br \/>\nprice,\teither\tin a lump sum or in four  equal\t six-monthly<br \/>\ninstalments, so that the same may be paid to the  landowner.<br \/>\nThe tenant who chose to deposit the first instalment of that<br \/>\npurchase price, deposited the same on 12-3-1963, well before<br \/>\nthe time allowed therefore.  The said order of the Assistant<br \/>\nCollector  made,  recognising the right of purchase  of\t the<br \/>\nland  by  the  tenant,\tbecame\tfinal,\twhen  the  Financial<br \/>\nCommissioner  by  his order dated 9-12-1965,  dismissed\t the<br \/>\nrevision petition of the landowner questioning the  tenant&#8217;s<br \/>\nright  of  purchase, in that, that order  of  the  Financial<br \/>\nCommissioner was not got set aside by the landowner from any<br \/>\nsuperior  forum.   However,  the  order\t of  the   Assistant<br \/>\nCollector dated 3-3-1963, relating to purchase price, which<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\"> 527<\/span><br \/>\nwas required to be redetermined by appellate remand order of<br \/>\nCollector  as affirmed by the revisional order\tdated  9-12-<br \/>\n1965 of the Financial Commissioner, was indeed, redetermined<br \/>\nby  the\t Assistant Collector by his order  dated  20-9-1968.<br \/>\nBut, such redetermination of the purchase price was confined<br \/>\nto  the\t portion  of the said land which  was  not  by\tthen<br \/>\nacquired  under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 &#8211;  &#8216;the\tL.A.<br \/>\nAct&#8217;  for  short.  However, the Commissioner, by  his  order<br \/>\ndated 19-8-1969, made in second appeal arising from the said<br \/>\norder  of  the Assistant Collector, held that  the  rate  of<br \/>\npurchase  price\t of  portion of\t land  redetermined  by\t the<br \/>\nAssistant  Collector  shall extend to the  whole  land,\t the<br \/>\npurchase of which was allowed by the Assistant Collector, by<br \/>\nhis earliest order dated 3-3-1963.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.In  the meanwhile, that on 3-8-1961 a\t notification  under<br \/>\nSection\t 4(1)  of the L.A. Act had come to be  published  in<br \/>\nHaryana State Gazette, proposing acquisition of 25 kanals  2<br \/>\nmarlas\tout of the said 224 kanals 18 marlas of land,  which<br \/>\nhad been allowed to be purchased by the tenant according  to<br \/>\nAssistant  Collector&#8217;s order dated 3-3-1963.  Possession  of<br \/>\nthe land proposed for acquisition was also taken by the Land<br \/>\nAcquisition  Collector (L.A. Collector) from the  tenant  on<br \/>\n14-10-1961,  resulting in vesting of that land in the  State<br \/>\nof Haryana, in that, such possession was taken under Section<br \/>\n17(1)  of  the L.A. Act.  Subsequently, on  14-10-1961,\t the<br \/>\nL.A.  Collector, who made an award under Section II  of\t the<br \/>\nL.A.  Act,  determined\tthe  compensation  payable  for\t the<br \/>\nacquired land of 25 kanals 2 marlas as Rs 26,271.00 and paid<br \/>\nthe  whole compensation to the tenant.\tThe  landowner,\t who<br \/>\nhad  claimed  the  whole  amount  of  compensation,  feeling<br \/>\naggrieved by the award of the L.A. Collector and the payment<br \/>\nof whole compensation to the tenant, made an application  to<br \/>\nthe  L.A.  Collector under Section 18 of the L.A.  Act,\t for<br \/>\nmaking\ta  reference  to the Court  of\tAdditional  District<br \/>\nJudge, Gurgaon for its decision under Section 30 of the L.A.<br \/>\nAct.   That Court, by its Judgment and decree  dated  29-10-<br \/>\n1965 held that the landowner alone was entitled to the whole<br \/>\nof  compensation  awarded  for the said\t land  by  the\tL.A.<br \/>\nCollector, on its view that the acquired land had vested  in<br \/>\nthe  State  Government before the tenant  could\t become\t its<br \/>\ndeemed\towner  under sub-section (4) of Section\t 18  of\t the<br \/>\nTenures Act by depositing its purchase price, as allowed  by<br \/>\nthe  Assistant Collector by his order dated 3-3-1963,  while<br \/>\nthe  landowner was still its owner.  In the  tenant&#8217;s  first<br \/>\nappeal preferred against that judgment and decree before the<br \/>\nHigh Court of Punjab and Haryana, a learned Single Judge  of<br \/>\nthat Court allowed that appeal partly, on his view that\t the<br \/>\ncompensation awarded for the acquired land was apportionable<br \/>\nbetween\t the landowner and the tenant in the ratio  of\t3:1,<br \/>\nthinking  that the amount so apportionable to the  landowner<br \/>\nwould  be  more or less the purchase price payable  for\t the<br \/>\nland by the tenant under subsections (2) and (3) of  Section<br \/>\n18  of\tthe Tenures Act.  But in the Letters  Patent  Appeal<br \/>\npreferred  by  the  tenant in the  same\t court\tagainst\t the<br \/>\njudgment  and  decree of learned Single\t Judge,\t a  Division<br \/>\nBench  by its judgment and decree dated\t 20-8-1979  rendered<br \/>\nfollowing its earlier judgment in a similar matter,  allowed<br \/>\nthat appeal partly, holding that the landowner&#8217;s entitlement<br \/>\nto compensation awarded for the said land acquired under the<br \/>\nL.A. Act, had<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">528<\/span><br \/>\nto be limited to the amount of compensation which was liable<br \/>\nto  be paid as purchase price by the tenant,  as  determined<br \/>\nunder sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 18 of the  Tenures<br \/>\nAct.   It is that judgment and decree of the Division  Bench<br \/>\nof  the\t High Court which is the subject  of  present  Civil<br \/>\nAppeal No. 540 of 1980.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.After\t the  said acquisition, that  on  8-9-1966,  another<br \/>\nnotification under Section 4(1) of the L.A. Act had come  to<br \/>\nbe published in Haryana State Gazette, proposing acquisition<br \/>\nof  151\t kanals\t and 2 marlas of land out of  224  kanals  4<br \/>\nmarlas of land which had been allowed to be purchased by the<br \/>\ntenant\taccording to Assistant Collector&#8217;s order dated\t3-3-<br \/>\n1963 on the purchase application made by the tenant and\t for<br \/>\nthe purchase of which the first instalment of purchase price<br \/>\nhad  come to be deposited by the tenant on  12-3-1963.\t The<br \/>\nL.A.  Collector determined the compensation payable for\t the<br \/>\nland  so  acquired in a sum of Rs 3,24,133.25 by  his  award<br \/>\ndated  4-4-1968\t made  under Section It\t of  the  L.A.\tAct.<br \/>\nPursuant to that award, tile L.A. Collector took  possession<br \/>\nof  the\t land  so acquired on 8-4-1968, on  which  date\t the<br \/>\nacquired  land vested absolutely in the State of Haryana  by<br \/>\noperation of Section 16 of the L.A. Act, Rs 3,24,133.25, the<br \/>\namount\tdetermined as compensation for the acquired land  by<br \/>\nthe award of the L.A. Collector, was also paid by him in its<br \/>\nentirety  to the landowner, Harinder Singh.   On  references<br \/>\nreceived  by  the Court of the\tAdditional  District  Judge,<br \/>\nGurgaon under Section 18 of the L.A. Act, to decide, on\t the<br \/>\nenhanced  compensation\tclaimed\t and on the  dispute  as  to<br \/>\nwhether the tenant or the landowner of the acquired land was<br \/>\nentitled to get the compensation payable for that land, that<br \/>\ncourt  by  its judgment and decree  dated  15-2-1971,  while<br \/>\nenhanced the compensation payable for the acquired land held<br \/>\nthat  the  entire  amount of compensation  payable  for\t the<br \/>\nacquired  land\twas liable to be paid to the  tenant  Bihari<br \/>\nLal, in that he had become the deemed owner of the  acquired<br \/>\nland on 12-3-1963 when he deposited the first instalment  of<br \/>\nthe  purchase price pursuant to the order dated 3-3-1963  of<br \/>\nthe  Assistant Collector made on his  purchase\tapplication.<br \/>\nAccording to that court when once the tenant, by making\t the<br \/>\ndeposit\t of first instalment of the purchase price on  12-3-<br \/>\n1963, became the deemed owner of the tenanted land from that<br \/>\nday  because of the legal fiction created under\t sub-section<br \/>\n(4)  of\t Section 18 of the Tenures Act,\t redetermination  of<br \/>\npurchase  price\t of land, if any, made\tby  the\t authorities<br \/>\nunder  the  Tenures Act could not bring\t about\tany  adverse<br \/>\neffect\ton the deemed ownership of land got by\tthe  tenant.<br \/>\nHowever,  the landowner, Harinder Singh,  preferred  regular<br \/>\nfirst appeal, RFA No. 345 of 1971 against the said  judgment<br \/>\nand  decree  of\t the Court  of\tAdditional  District  Judge,<br \/>\nGurgaon before the High Court.\tBut, a Division Bench of the<br \/>\nHigh Court dismissed that appeal by its judgment and  decree<br \/>\ndated  2-5-1979.   It  is that judgment and  decree  of\t the<br \/>\nDivision  Bench of the High Court, which is the\t subject  of<br \/>\npresent Civil Appeal No. 3288 of 1979.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.Questions  requiring\tour consideration  in  deciding\t the<br \/>\npresent appeals, having regard to the facts which have given<br \/>\nrise to them, could be set out thus:\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\"> 529<\/span><\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t      (i)   Does a landowner of land which could  be<br \/>\n\t      purchased by a tenant under Section 18 of\t the<br \/>\n\t      Tenures  Act,  cease to be its  landowner\t and<br \/>\n\t      consequently cease to have any interest in it,<br \/>\n\t      on  such tenant depositing according  to\tsub-<br \/>\n\t      section  (4) there of, its purchase  price  or<br \/>\n\t      first  instalment of its purchase price  fixed<br \/>\n\t      by  the Assistant Collector, and becoming\t its<br \/>\n\t      deemed owner as envisaged thereunder.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t      (ii)If a land which its tenant was  entitled<br \/>\n\t      to  purchase under Section 18 of\tthe  Tenures<br \/>\n\t      Act  had\tcome to be vested in  the  State  by<br \/>\n\t      reason  of its acquisition under the L.A.\t Act<br \/>\n\t      before such tenant became its deemed owner  as<br \/>\n\t      envisaged under sub-section (4) of Section  18<br \/>\n\t      of  the  Tenures Act, could the  landowner  of<br \/>\n\t      that  land  have made a claim for\t payment  of<br \/>\n\t      compensation  payable therefor under the\tL.A.<br \/>\n\t      Act  and if such a claim had been\t made,\twhat<br \/>\n\t      could  be regarded as his entitlement  in\t the<br \/>\n\t      amount of such compensation.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>We  shall now proceed to consider the said questions in\t the<br \/>\nlight  of  contentions of learned counsel  raised,  for\t and<br \/>\nagainst them.\n<\/p>\n<p>Re:  Question (i)\n<\/p>\n<p>5.   Since  this question pertains to the result that  flows<br \/>\nfrom  the exercise by a tenant of his right to purchase\t the<br \/>\ntenanted  land\tfrom its landowner under Section 18  of\t the<br \/>\nTenures\t Act,  need  to\t consider it on\t the  basis  of\t the<br \/>\nprovisions in that section, arises.  The provisions  insofar<br \/>\nas they bear on the question are, therefore, reproduced:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t      &#8220;18.  Rights  of certain tenants\tto  purchase<br \/>\n\t      land.-  (1)  Notwithstanding anything  to\t the<br \/>\n\t      contrary\tcontained  in  any  law,  usage\t  or<br \/>\n\t      contract, a tenant of a landowner other than a<br \/>\n\t      small landowner-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t      (i)   who has been in continuous occupation of<br \/>\n\t      the  land\t comprised  in\this  tenancy  for  a<br \/>\n\t      minimum period of six years, or &#8230;<br \/>\n\t      shall   be  entitled  to\tpurchase  from\t the<br \/>\n\t      landowner the land so held by him<br \/>\n\t       Provided&#8230;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t      Provided further &#8230;.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>(2)A tenant desirous of purchasing land under  sub-section<br \/>\n(1) shall make anapplication  in writing to an\tAssistant<br \/>\nCollector  of First Grade having jurisdiction over the\tland<br \/>\nconcerned, and the Assistant Collector, after giving  notice<br \/>\nto the landowner and to all other persons interested in\t the<br \/>\nland  and after making such inquiry as he thinks fit,  shall<br \/>\ndetermine  the value of land which shall be the\t average  of<br \/>\nthe price obtaining for similar land in the locality  during<br \/>\n10  years  immediately\tpreceding  the\tdate  on  which\t the<br \/>\napplication is made.\n<\/p>\n<p>(3)  The purchase price shall be three-fourths of the  value<br \/>\nof land as so determined.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">530<\/span><\/p>\n<p>\t      (4)(a)  The tenant shall be competent  to\t pay<br \/>\n\t\t\t    the\t purchase price either in a lump sum or\t i<br \/>\nn<br \/>\n\t      six-monthly  instalments not exceeding ten  in<br \/>\n\t      the manner prescribed.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t      (b)   On\tthe  purchase  price  or  the  first<br \/>\n\t      instalment thereof, as the case may be,being<br \/>\n\t      deposited, the tenant shall be deemed to\thave<br \/>\n\t      become the owner of the land, &#8230;.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t      (c)   If a default is committed in the payment<br \/>\n\t      of   any\tof  the\t instalments,\tthe   entire<br \/>\n\t      outstanding  balance shall, on application  by<br \/>\n\t      the   person  entitled  to  receive   it,\t  be<br \/>\n\t      recoverable as arrears of land revenue&#8230;&#8230;\n<\/p>\n<p>6.   The language employed in sub-section (1) of Section 18,<br \/>\nas could be seen, is unequivocal as regards entitlement of a<br \/>\ntenant\tto purchase land comprised in his tenancy  from\t his<br \/>\nlandowner.  A tenant desirous of purchasing land,  according<br \/>\nto  his\t entitlement  under sub-section ( 1),  if  makes  an<br \/>\napplication therefor before the Assistant Collector of First<br \/>\nGrade having jurisdiction over such land as required by sub-<br \/>\nsection\t (2) thereof, such Assistant Collector\tis  enjoined<br \/>\nthereunder  to determine the value of land comprised in\t the<br \/>\ntenancy after notice to the landowner and others who may  be<br \/>\nconcerned  with it.  Further, according to  that  subsection<br \/>\nthe  value to be determined for such land is required to  be<br \/>\nonly the average of the price obtaining for similar land  in<br \/>\nthe locality during ten years immediately preceding the date<br \/>\non  which application for its purchase was made.   When\t the<br \/>\nvalue  of the tenanted land is so determined as required  by<br \/>\nsub-section  (2) thereof, its purchase price payable by\t the<br \/>\ntenant\twould be three-fourth of such value as specified  in<br \/>\nsub-section  (3)  thereof.  Clause (a)\tof  sub-section\t (4)<br \/>\nthereof entitles the tenant to pay the purchase price either<br \/>\nin  a  lump sum or instalments to be fixed in  that  behalf.<br \/>\nThen, clause (b) of sub-section (4) of Section 18,  declares<br \/>\nin  unequivocal\t terms that the tenant shall  be  deemed  to<br \/>\nbecome\tthe owner of the land on the purchase price  or\t the<br \/>\nfirst  instalment  thereof,  as\t the  case  may\t be,   being<br \/>\ndeposited.  When a tenant becomes a deemed owner of the land<br \/>\ncomprised  in his tenancy by deposit of either the  purchase<br \/>\nprice or the first instalment thereof, because of the  legal<br \/>\nfiction\t created  under\t clause (b) of\tsub-section  (4)  of<br \/>\nSection\t 18, it follows as a necessary corollary, that\tsuch<br \/>\nland&#8217;s\tlandowner till deposit can no longer be regarded  as<br \/>\nits  landowner.\t In other words, from the moment the  tenant<br \/>\ndeposits the purchase price or the first instalment  thereof<br \/>\npayable\t towards the purchase of the land comprised  in\t his<br \/>\ntenancy,  the  landowner  of that land ceases  to  have\t the<br \/>\ninterest  which\t he had in it as such landowner\t till  then,<br \/>\ninasmuch as, no provision is found in the Tenures Act  which<br \/>\nallows\thim  to\t continue to have  thereafter  any  kind  of<br \/>\ninterest  whatsoever  in that land.   Moreover,\t since\tsub-<br \/>\nsection\t (5)  [sic  (4)(c)]  of\t Section  18  entitles\t the<br \/>\nlandowner  to make an application merely for  recovery\tfrom<br \/>\nthe  tenant  of purchase money payable\tin  instalments,  as<br \/>\narrears\t of  land  revenue,  it is  made  obvious  that\t the<br \/>\ninstalments of purchase money payable by tenant for the<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\"> 531<\/span><br \/>\nland  comprised in his tenancy is not even made a charge  on<br \/>\nthat  land, to and any claim of interest by such  landowner,<br \/>\nagainst such land.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.   That a tenant becomes a deemed owner of land  comprised<br \/>\nin  his tenancy by deposit of either the purchase  money  or<br \/>\nfirst  instalment thereof as declared by clause (b) of\tsub-<br \/>\nsection\t (4)  of  Section 18, was not  disputed\t by  learned<br \/>\ncounsel\t for  the appellant.  It was,  however,\t strenuously<br \/>\nargued\tfor the appellant that the tenant cannot become\t the<br \/>\ndeemed\towner  by  deposit of the purchase  money  or  first<br \/>\ninstalment thereof as determined by the Assistant Collector,<br \/>\nbut  becomes such deemed owner when he deposits\t the  higher<br \/>\npurchase  price determined in appeal and revision  filed  by<br \/>\nthe  appellant before the authorities.\tHe sought to  obtain<br \/>\nsupport for that argument from the judgment of this Court in<br \/>\n<a href=\"\/doc\/476355\/\">Bishan Singh v. Khazan Singh&#8217; and the<\/a> judgment of the  Privy<br \/>\nCouncil in Deonandan Prashad Singh v. Ramdhari Chowdhril.\n<\/p>\n<p>8.   We\t are  unable  to  find any  merit  in  the  argument<br \/>\nadvanced  on behalf of the appellant.  Neither the  judgment<br \/>\nof  Privy Council nor the judgment of this Court from  which<br \/>\nsupport\t was  sought  for the  argument,  can  furnish\tsuch<br \/>\nsupport.\n<\/p>\n<p>9.   In\t Deonandan Prashad Singh case2 decided by the  Privy<br \/>\nCouncil, the facts were these.\tA Subordinate Judge had made<br \/>\na pre-emption decree in respect of certain property.  On the<br \/>\nbasis of that decree the pre-emptors were put in  possession<br \/>\nof that property from 1900 to 1904.  That pre-emption decree<br \/>\nwhen was set aside by the High Court, the original purchaser<br \/>\nof  that  property remained its possession and was  in\tsuch<br \/>\npossession between 1905 and 1909.  Thereafter, in 1908, when<br \/>\nthe Privy Council reversed the decree of the High Court\t and<br \/>\nmade a decree recognising the pre-emptor&#8217;s right to purchase<br \/>\nthe  property at a hi-her purchase price than that fixed  by<br \/>\nthe Subordinate Court, the pre-emptors, paid the extra price<br \/>\nin  1909  and  took  possession of  the\t property  from\t the<br \/>\noriginal  purchaser.   In  this\t situation,  the  pre-emptor<br \/>\nsought to get mesne profits in respect of the property\tfrom<br \/>\nits  original  purchaser between 1904 and 1909,\t the  period<br \/>\nduring\twhich  he was in its possession.  Whether  the\tpre-<br \/>\nemptors\t were  entitled\t to mesne  profits  for\t the  period<br \/>\nbetween 1905 and 1909, (the period during which the judgment<br \/>\nof the High Court was in force), was the question that again<br \/>\ncame  up  for  decision by the\tPrivy  Council.\t  The  Privy<br \/>\nCouncil\t held that the pre-emptors were not entitled to\t get<br \/>\nmesne  profits of the property for the period  between\t1904<br \/>\nand 1909, on its reasoning:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t      &#8220;It,  therefore, follows that where a suit  is<br \/>\n\t      brought,\tit  is on payment of  the  purchase-<br \/>\n\t      money on the specified date that the plaintiff<br \/>\n\t      obtains possession of-the property, and, until<br \/>\n\t      that  time,  the\toriginal  purchaser  retains<br \/>\n\t      possession  and is entitled to the  rents\t and<br \/>\n\t      profits.\t This  was so held in  the  case  of<br \/>\n\t      Deokinandlan v. Sri Ram3 and there Mahmud, J.,<br \/>\n\t      .lm0<br \/>\n\t      1\t    AIR 1958 SC 838<br \/>\n\t      2\t    AIR 1916 PC 179: 44 IA SO: 32 MLJ 459<br \/>\n\t       3    ILR 12 All 234<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">\t      532<\/span><br \/>\n\t      whose  authority\tis well recognised  by\tall,<br \/>\n\t      stated that it was only when the terms of\t the<br \/>\n\t      decree  were fulfilled and enforced  that\t the<br \/>\n\t      persons having the right of pre-emption become<br \/>\n\t      owners  of the property, that  such  ownership<br \/>\n\t      did   not\t  vest\tfrom  the  date\t  of   sale,<br \/>\n\t      notwithstanding success in the suit, and\tthat<br \/>\n\t      the  actual substitution of the owner  of\t the<br \/>\n\t      preempted property dates with possession under<br \/>\n\t      the decree.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>10.In  Bishan Singh case&#8217; this Court had to decide  as\tto<br \/>\nwhen  a\t decreeholder in a conditional\tpre-emption  decree,<br \/>\nbecomes\t the  owner  of the property in\t the  place  of\t the<br \/>\noriginal  vendee of such property.  On the authority of\t the<br \/>\njudgment of the Privy Council in Deonandan Prashad case2  it<br \/>\nwas   held  by\tthis  Court  that  the\tpre-emptor  is\t not<br \/>\nsubstituted  in\t the  place  of\t the  original\tvendee\ttill<br \/>\nconditions  laid down in the decree were fulfilled.  We\t are<br \/>\nunable\tto understand, how the said judgments of  the  Privy<br \/>\nCouncil\t and  this Court, which decided on the\tquestion  of<br \/>\npre-emptors  becoming  owners  of lands\t in  the  places  of<br \/>\noriginal vendees on the well-settled authority of preemptors<br \/>\nbecoming  owners of lands in the place of  original  vendees<br \/>\naccording to pre-emption decrees, could support the argument<br \/>\nof learned counsel for the appellant, that under the Tenures<br \/>\nAct  the tenant becomes the owner of the tenanted land\twhen<br \/>\nenhanced  purchase  price if any, is deposited\tor  paid  to<br \/>\nlandowner.   The argument overlooks the fact  that  purchase<br \/>\nprice and its first instalment to be deposited by the tenant<br \/>\nunder  the  Tenures  Act  is that  fixed  by  the  Assistant<br \/>\nCollector,  for\t the  tenant to\t become\t its  deemed  owner.<br \/>\nQuestion  of  entitlement  to possession  of  tenanted\tland<br \/>\ncannot\tbe disputed while the question which arises in\tpre-<br \/>\nemption decrees is the time at which the pre-emptors  become<br \/>\nentitled  to such possession.  As to when the tenant who  is<br \/>\nentitled  to purchase land comprised in his tenancy  becomes<br \/>\nthe owner has, therefore, to be decided according to what is<br \/>\nprovided  for in the relevant provisions of the Tenures\t Act<br \/>\nitself\tand  not  with reference to  pre-emptors&#8217;  right  of<br \/>\nownership  to property under pre-emption decrees.   Relevant<br \/>\nprovisions  in\tthe Tenures Act, to which  we  have  already<br \/>\nadverted  are contained in Section 18 thereof and  could  be<br \/>\neven  reiterated  to avoid ambiguity.  Clause  (a)  of\tsub-<br \/>\nsection (4) of Section 18 gives the option to the tenant  to<br \/>\ndeposit purchase price or first instalment thereof as  fixed<br \/>\nby  the Assistant Collector.  Because of the  legal  fiction<br \/>\ncreated\t by  clause (b) of subsection (4) of  that  section,<br \/>\nwhen  once  the purchase price or the  first  instalment  of<br \/>\npurchase money, as specified by the Assistant Collector,  is<br \/>\ndeposited, such tenant becomes the deemed owner of the\tland<br \/>\ncomprised  in his tenancy.  Hence, there can arise  no\troom<br \/>\nfor  any  doubt that a tenant who is in\t possession  of\t the<br \/>\nproperty, because of the deposit of purchase price he makes,<br \/>\nbecomes\t the  absolute\towner,\tdisplacing  the\t landowner&#8217;s<br \/>\ninterest  in such land, possessed till then.  Clause (c)  of<br \/>\nsub-section (4) of Section 1 8 when states that the  default<br \/>\non the part of the tenant in making instalments of  purchase<br \/>\nprice, will allow the person entitled to the same to recover<br \/>\nit  as\tarrears\t of  revenue,  it  becomes  clear  that\t the<br \/>\nintendment  of the Act is not to postpone the right  of\t the<br \/>\ntenant\tto  become the owner of the land  comprised  in\t his<br \/>\ntenancy on account of non-payment of purchase price even  if<br \/>\na higher<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\"> 533<\/span><br \/>\npurchase   price  is  fixed  by\t Appellate   or\t  Revisional<br \/>\nAuthority.    Moreover,\t  when\t the   object\tof   tenancy<br \/>\nlegislation,  as  well settled, is to make the\ttenant,\t the<br \/>\ntiller\tof  the land, its owner, the  beneficial  provisions<br \/>\nwhich  are  made thereunder to confer  ownership  rights  on<br \/>\ntenants,  cannot  receive a construction  which\t results  in<br \/>\neither\tpostponing  or\tdefeating  the\tright  of  ownership<br \/>\nconferred on tenants in respect of their tenanted lands.  As<br \/>\nthe acceptance of the argument of the learned counsel of the<br \/>\nappellant  is  bound  to have the effect  of  defeating\t the<br \/>\nobject of the provisions in the Tenures Act avowedly made by<br \/>\nthe legislature for conferring right of ownership of land on<br \/>\nits tenants, we find it difficult to accept it.\t However, it<br \/>\nis made clear that if there was a deposit of purchase  price<br \/>\nor  first  instalment  thereof made by\ta  tenant  when\t the<br \/>\noperation  of  the order relating to  fixation\tof  purchase<br \/>\nprice  was  stayed  by competent authority  or\tcourt,\tsuch<br \/>\ndeposit could not have made the tenant a deemed owner.\t Our<br \/>\nanswer\tto the question under consideration,  therefore,  is<br \/>\nthat  a\t landowner  of land which could be  purchased  by  a<br \/>\ntenant under Section 18 of the Tenures Act ceases to be\t its<br \/>\nlandowner  and consequently ceases to have any\tinterest  in<br \/>\nsuch  land,  on\t such tenant depositing\t according  to\tsub-<br \/>\nsection (4) thereof, its purchase price or first  instalment<br \/>\nof  its purchase price as fixed by Assistant  Collector\t and<br \/>\nbecoming its deemed owner as envisaged thereunder.<br \/>\nRe:  Question (ii)\n<\/p>\n<p>11.Since   this\t question  pertains  to\t the   landowner&#8217;s<br \/>\nentitlement  of\t compensation awardable\t for  tenanted\tland<br \/>\nacquired  under the L.A. Act before its tenant\tbecomes\t its<br \/>\ndeemed\towner  under  Section  18 of  the  Tenures  Act,  it<br \/>\nrequires  to  be  answered  on the  basis  of  the  relevant<br \/>\nprovisions both in the L.A. Act and the Tenures Act.  That a<br \/>\nlandowner  loses every interest he had in respect of a\tland<br \/>\nwhen its tenant becomes its deemed owner, as envisaged under<br \/>\nsub-section (4) of Section 18 of the Tenures Act, is pointed<br \/>\nout  by\t us  already while  answering  question\t (i).\tWhat<br \/>\ntherefore,  requires our consideration in dealing  with\t the<br \/>\npresent\t question is, whether a landowner would be  entitled<br \/>\nto  compensation  awarded  for a tenanted land\twhen  it  is<br \/>\nacquired  under\t L.A.  Act before the tenant  of  such\tland<br \/>\nbecomes its deemed owner under sub-section (4) of Section 18<br \/>\nof the Tenures Act, and if so, what &#8211;an be regarded as\t his<br \/>\nentitlement in the amount of such compensation.\n<\/p>\n<p>12.Since we are concerned with the compensation\t awardable<br \/>\nfor a land quired under the L.A. Act before its amendment by<br \/>\nCentral\t Act  68 of 1984, compensation\tawardable  for\tland<br \/>\nacquired  under\t the  unamended L.A. ct, could\tbe  said  to<br \/>\ncomprise of the following components:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t      (i)   The market value of the land at the date<br \/>\n\t      of  publication  of  the\tnotification   under<br \/>\n\t      Section 4(1) of the L.A. Act.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t      (ii)The\tdamage\tsustained  by\ta   person<br \/>\n\t      interested  by  reason of taking\tof  standing<br \/>\n\t      crops or trees which may be on the land at the<br \/>\n\t      time of Collector&#8217;s taking possession thereof.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">\t      534<\/span><\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t      (iii)The\tdamage,\t if any\t sustained  by\tthe<br \/>\n\t      person  interested at the time of\t Collector&#8217;s<br \/>\n\t      taking  possession  of the land by  reason  of<br \/>\n\t      severing of such land from his other land.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t      (iv)The  damage,\tif any, sustained  by  the<br \/>\n\t      person  interested at the time of\t Collector&#8217;s<br \/>\n\t      taking  possession of the land, by  reason  of<br \/>\n\t      the  acquisition\tinjuriously  affecting\t his<br \/>\n\t      other property, moveable or immovable, in\t any<br \/>\n\t      other manner, or his earnings.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t      (v)   If in consequence of the acquisition  of<br \/>\n\t      the   land   by  the  Collector\tthe   person<br \/>\n\t      interested   is\tcompelled  to\tchange\t his<br \/>\n\t      residence or place of business, the reasonable<br \/>\n\t      expenses,\t if any, incidental to such  change,<br \/>\n\t      and\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t      (vi)The damage, if any, bona fide\t resulting<br \/>\n\t      from diminution of the profits of land between<br \/>\n\t      the time of the publication of the declaration<br \/>\n\t      under  Section 6 and the time  of\t Collector&#8217;s<br \/>\n\t      taking possession of the land.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>13.  We\t could add to the component of the market  value  of<br \/>\nthe  land  in item (i) above, 15%  being  the  consideration<br \/>\npayable\t for the compulsory nature of acquisition, that\t is,<br \/>\nsolatium.   Since  interest  becomes  payable  for   delayed<br \/>\npayment of compensation after the Collector takes possession<br \/>\nof  the acquired land such interest, if accrued, has  to  be<br \/>\nadded  to each component of compensation.  The\tcompensation<br \/>\nawardable  since  comprises  of the  said  components  every<br \/>\nperson\tentitled to obtain any or all the components of\t the<br \/>\ncompensation,  becomes entitled to make a claim\t as  regards<br \/>\nhis interest ill the land and the component of\tcompensation<br \/>\nawardable  thereto.   There cannot be any doubt nor  was  it<br \/>\ndisputed  that the landowner possesses certain interest\t ill<br \/>\nthe acquired tenanted land, if it is acquired under the L.A.<br \/>\nAct  and vested in the State before its tenant\tbecomes\t its<br \/>\ndeemed\towner  under sub-section (4) of Section\t 18  of\t the<br \/>\nTenures\t Act.\tLandowner  could  claim\t the  component\t  of<br \/>\ncompensation or any portion thereof according to the  nature<br \/>\nof  interest possessed by him prior to the  acquisition\t and<br \/>\nvesting of the land under the L.A. Act.\t The composition  of<br \/>\neach of the components of compensation adverted to by us are<br \/>\nseen, the landowner can make no claim for the components  of<br \/>\ncompensation  under  items  (ii) to  (vi),  in\tthat,  those<br \/>\ncomponents  of compensation could become payable only  to  a<br \/>\ntenant who would have suffered damages awardable thereunder.<br \/>\nHowever,  if  regard  is had to the nature  of\tinterest  of<br \/>\nlandowner  comprised  in the tenancy of a  tenant,  a  claim<br \/>\ncould  be made by him for the component of  compensation  of<br \/>\nmarket\tvalue in item (i) and solatium and interest  payable<br \/>\nthereon.  The question which, then, needs our  consideration<br \/>\nis, whether the landowner who, as owner of the tenanted land<br \/>\nbefore its acquisition and vesting under the L.A. Act, could<br \/>\nclaim  the whole component of compensation in item  (i)\t and<br \/>\nsolatium  and interest awardable thereon.  Here,  comes\t the<br \/>\nnature\tof  interest which the landowner  possessed  in\t the<br \/>\ntenanted land at the time of its acquisition and its vesting<br \/>\nin  the\t State under the L.A. Act.  It cannot  be  gainsaid,<br \/>\nthat a landowner of tenanted land, to the purchase of  which<br \/>\na tenant<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\"> 535<\/span><br \/>\nhad  become  entitled under Section 18 of the  Tenures\tAct,<br \/>\ncould be anything other than the purchase price payable\t for<br \/>\npurchase  of it under the Act, particularly, when  a  tenant<br \/>\nhad made an application for such purchase availing the right<br \/>\nconferred  upon him in that regard under Section 18  of\t the<br \/>\nTenures\t Act.  If at the time of acquisition and vesting  of<br \/>\nthe  tenanted  land  under the\tL.A.  Act,  the\t landowner&#8217;s<br \/>\nentitlement from the tenant was such land&#8217;s purchase  price,<br \/>\nhis interest, having regard to its nature, could only be  in<br \/>\nthe component of compensation consisting of market value  of<br \/>\nthe  land adverted to in item (i) and solatium and  interest<br \/>\npayable\t thereon and nothing beyond it.\t Therefore,  such  a<br \/>\nlandowner  could  only lay his claim for the amount  of\t the<br \/>\npurchase price out of the component of such compensation and<br \/>\nlimited\t to the amount of purchase price.  However,  it\t was<br \/>\ncontended  on  behalf of the appellant\tthat  the  landowner<br \/>\nwould  become  entitled to three fourths of  the  amount  of<br \/>\ncompensation awardable for the land acquired even though the<br \/>\ntenant\twas entitled to its purchase under the Tenures\tAct.<br \/>\nIn  support  of the submission, reliance was placed  on\t the<br \/>\nobservations  made  by a learned Single Judge  of  the\tHigh<br \/>\nCourt  in  his judgment &#8211; the subject matter of one  of\t the<br \/>\npresent appeals, which read, thus:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t      &#8220;1  think the Punjab Security of Land  Tenures<br \/>\n\t      Act itself appears to afford some guidance  in<br \/>\n\t      the  matter.   Section  18(3)  prescribes\t the<br \/>\n\t      purchase\tprice  to be paid by the  tenant  at<br \/>\n\t      three-fourths  of\t the value of  the  land  as<br \/>\n\t      determined  by Section 18(2).  It\t means\tthat<br \/>\n\t      the  interest of the landowner is assessed  at<br \/>\n\t      three-fourths  and the interest of the  tenant<br \/>\n\t      is  assessed at one-fourth.  The value of\t the<br \/>\n\t      land as determined under Section 18(2) may  be<br \/>\n\t      more or less than the value of the land on the<br \/>\n\t      date of the notification of acquisition.\t But<br \/>\n\t      that  makes no difference.  What is  important<br \/>\n\t      is that the interests of the landowner and the<br \/>\n\t      tenant  are  fixed at three-fourths  and\tone-<br \/>\n\t      fourth  of  the value of the  land.   On\tthat<br \/>\n\t      basis,  1\t direct\t the  apportionment  of\t the<br \/>\n\t      compensation  between  the appellant  and\t the<br \/>\n\t\t\t    first respondent in the ratio of 1:3.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>The said observation of the learned Single Judge, it must be<br \/>\nsaid, with great respect to him, is based on misconstruction<br \/>\nof the provisions of sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section  18<br \/>\nof  the Tenures Act.  The value of the land envisaged  under<br \/>\nsub-section (2) is not the market value of the land but\t the<br \/>\nvalue of the land which should be the average price of\tland<br \/>\nin  the neighbourhood during 10 years preceding the date  of<br \/>\nmaking\tof  the application by the tenant  for\tpurchase  of<br \/>\nland.  What sub-section (3) says, is that the purchase price<br \/>\nof  the tenanted land must be three-fourths of the value  of<br \/>\nthe  land determined under subsection (2), which means\tthat<br \/>\nthe  value of the tenanted land could only be  three-fourths<br \/>\nof  the\t average value of the neighbouring land\t during\t ten<br \/>\nyears preceding the date Of making of the application by the<br \/>\ntenant\tfor purchase.  Here is a statutory measure  required<br \/>\nto  be\tadopted to find out the purchase price\tof  tenanted<br \/>\nland  and not the supposed market value of that land  as  on<br \/>\nthe date of making of the application for purchase.  If that<br \/>\nbe  so, we are unable to understand how the market value  of<br \/>\nthe  land  which will be far different\tfrom  the  statutory<br \/>\nvalue of the land could be regarded as the<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">536<\/span><br \/>\nsame, as has been done by the learned Single Judge.   Hence,<br \/>\nthe  contention raised on behalf of the appellant  that\t the<br \/>\nlandowner  would be entitled to three-fourths of the  market<br \/>\nvalue of the land, becomes unsustainable.  If we have regard<br \/>\nto the provisions under sub-sections (2) and (3) of  Section<br \/>\n18  of the Tenures Act, rightly adverted to by\tthe  learned<br \/>\nSingle\tJudge,\tthe  amount  of\t compensation  to  which   a<br \/>\nlandowner  becomes entitled can only be the  purchase  price<br \/>\nwhich he would be entitled under the said provisions for his<br \/>\nland,  which the tenant had a right to purchase\t thereunder.<br \/>\nIf  the\t purchase  in  favour of the  tenant  was  over,  as<br \/>\nindicated  in  sub-section  (5) (sic)  of  Section  18,\t the<br \/>\npurchase  price,  it must be kept in mind, could  have\tbeen<br \/>\nrecovered   by\t the  landowner\t as  arrears   of   revenue.<br \/>\nTherefore, in our view, the tenant could have been  entitled<br \/>\nto  get\t out of the component of compensation  awardable  as<br \/>\nmarket value in Item (i) referred to above and the  solatium<br \/>\nand   interest\t payable  thereon,  only  that\t amount\t  of<br \/>\ncompensation which could be equivalent to the purchase price<br \/>\nliable\tto  be\tpaid by the tenant to  the  landowner  under<br \/>\nSection\t 18  of the Tenures Act and nothing  more  or  less.<br \/>\nHence,\tour answer to the question under  consideration\t is,<br \/>\nthat  if  a tenanted land which its tenant was\tentitled  to<br \/>\npurchase under Section 18 of the Tenures Act did vest in the<br \/>\nState by reason of its acquisition under the L.A. Act before<br \/>\nhe  became its deemed owner as envisaged  under\t sub-section<br \/>\n(4) of Section 18 of the Tenures Act, the landowner of\tthat<br \/>\ntenanted  land\tcould  have made a  claim  for\tcompensation<br \/>\nawardable  therefor under the L.A. Act and  his\t entitlement<br \/>\nout  of the said compensation could only be that falling  in<br \/>\nthe component of compensation in item (i), the market  value<br \/>\nof  that land together with solatium and interest,  however,<br \/>\nlimited\t to  the  amount  of purchase  price  which  he\t was<br \/>\nentitled to get for the land under Section 18 of the Tenures<br \/>\nAct and nothing more or less.\n<\/p>\n<p>14.We  shall now turn to the facts leading to the  present<br \/>\nappeals for deciding them in the light of the answers  given<br \/>\nby us for the questions which arose for our consideration.\n<\/p>\n<p>15.The facts which have led to landowner&#8217;s appeal  bearing<br \/>\nC.A.  No. 540 of 1980, show that 25 kanals 2 marlas  out  of<br \/>\n224  kanals 18 marlas of land respecting which\tBihari\tLal,<br \/>\nthe  tenant, became a deemed owner on 12-3-1963\t under\tsub-<br \/>\nsection (4) of Section 18 of the Tenures Act, had come to be<br \/>\nacquired  and  vested  in the State under the  L.A.  Act  on<br \/>\n14-10-1961 earlier to the tenant becoming its deemed  owner.<br \/>\nIf that be so, if regard is had to the questions answered by<br \/>\nus, Harinder Singh, the landowner had become entitled to get<br \/>\nout of the compensation awarded for the said land under\t the<br \/>\nL.A.  Act, an amount equivalent to its purchase\t price.\t  If<br \/>\nthat amount is not taken by Harinder Singh from the deposits<br \/>\nmade  by  Bihari Lal, the tenant, as the purchase  price  of<br \/>\nthat land under the Tenures Act, or out of the\tcompensation<br \/>\nawarded\t  for\tthat  land  under  the\t L.A.\tAct,   legal<br \/>\nrepresentatives\t of Harinder Singh would be entitled to\t get<br \/>\nthe same either from the compensation, if any available,  or<br \/>\nfrom Bihari Lat.\n<\/p>\n<p>16.Coming  to the facts which have led to the  landowner&#8217;s<br \/>\nappeal\tbearing\t C.A. No. 3288 of 1979, they show  that\t 151<br \/>\nkanals 2 marlas of land out<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">537<\/span><br \/>\nof 224 kanals 18 marlas of land respecting which the tenant,<br \/>\nBihari\tLal,  became  the  deemed  owner  on  12-3-1963\t was<br \/>\nacquired  and  vested  in the State on\t8-4-1968,  that\t is,<br \/>\nsubsequent to the tenant becoming its deemed owner.  If that<br \/>\nbe so, according to the answers given by us to the questions<br \/>\nconsidered,  the landowner had no right to make a claim\t for<br \/>\ncompensation  payable  for  that land under  the  L.A.\tAct,<br \/>\ninasmuch  as he had lost all his interest in that land\twell<br \/>\nbefore\tthe acquisition proceedings for acquiring that\tland<br \/>\nunder  the  L.A. Act had commenced.   Unfortunately,  as  is<br \/>\ndisclosed  from\t the facts leading to the  appeal,  Harinder<br \/>\nSingh,\tthe landowner, had received the compensation  of  Rs<br \/>\n3,24,133.25   awarded  for  the\t said  land  by\t  the\tLand<br \/>\nAcquisition  Officer in his award made under Section 1 1  of<br \/>\nthe  L.A.  Act on 4-4-1968, while our answers  to  questions<br \/>\nconsidered  by\tus,  make  it  clear  that  such  amount  of<br \/>\ncompensation to which the landowner was not entitled, should<br \/>\nnot  have  been received by him.  Our aforesaid\t answers  to<br \/>\nquestions  considered by us, also make it obvious  that\t the<br \/>\nsaid  amount  of compensation should have been paid  in\t its<br \/>\nentirety  to the tenant, Bihari Lal, in that, it was he\t who<br \/>\nwas  entitled to that amount of compensation  having  become<br \/>\nthe  deemed owner of the said acquired land of 151 kanals  2<br \/>\nmarlas.\t  No doubt the third proviso to sub-section  (2)  of<br \/>\nSection\t 31 of the L.A. Act says, that nothing contained  in<br \/>\nthe section shall affect the liability of any person who may<br \/>\nreceive the whole or any part of any compensation under\t the<br \/>\nAct,  to  pay  the  same to  the  person  lawfully  entitled<br \/>\nthereto.   Therefore,  it  is obvious  that  the  landowner,<br \/>\nHarinder  Singh,  is liable to pay a sum of  Rs\t 3,24,133.25<br \/>\nreceived  by him from the Land Acquisition  Collector  under<br \/>\nhis award dated 4-4-1968, to the tenant, Bihari Lal.   Since<br \/>\nHarinder  Singh\t had  the  benefit of  that  amount  to\t the<br \/>\ndeprivation  of its use by Bihari Lal, he has to  make\tgood<br \/>\nthat  amount to Bihari Lal, at least along with 6  per\tcent<br \/>\ninterest from the date of its receipt by him to the date  of<br \/>\npayment,  if it is not already repaid, as urged\t by  learned<br \/>\ncounsel\t for Bihari La], the respondent.  Further,  as\tseen<br \/>\nfrom the record, the appellant, Harinder Singh, is dead\t and<br \/>\nhis  legal  representatives  are  prosecuting  the   present<br \/>\nappeals.   In this peculiar situation, we consider  it\tjust<br \/>\nand appropriate to direct that the amount liable to be\tpaid<br \/>\nby  Harinder  Singh  shall be regarded as  a  debt  owed  by<br \/>\nHarinder Singh to Bihari Lal and the same being payable from<br \/>\nthe former to the latter, shall be a charge on the  property<br \/>\nof  the deceased, Harinder Singh, in the hands of his  legal<br \/>\nrepresentatives\t and Bihari Lal and his successors shall  be<br \/>\nentitled to realise such debt by sale of such properties  if<br \/>\nthe  same is not otherwise realised.  In this  regard,\tthis<br \/>\njudgment  shall be regarded as a decree which could  be\t got<br \/>\nexecuted  through  the reference court,\t whichever  is\tsuch<br \/>\ncourt that may have jurisdiction as on date.  Such course is<br \/>\nadopted\t by  us\t since\twe  felt  that\tthere  will  be\t  no<br \/>\njustification  for  driving  Bihari Lal\t or  his  successors<br \/>\ninterest, by resorting to separate proceedings after a lapse<br \/>\nof about 26 years.\n<\/p>\n<p>17.   Subject  to  what we have said  to  the  liability  of<br \/>\nHarinder Singh or his legal representatives to make good the<br \/>\namount\tof compensation received under the award dated\t4-4-<br \/>\n1968 of the Land Acquisition Collector, we<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">539<\/span><br \/>\ndismiss\t the  present appeals.\tHowever, in  the  facts\t and<br \/>\ncircumstances  of the cases, we do not propose to  make\t any<br \/>\norder as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Col. Sir Harinder Singh Brar B. &#8230; vs Biharilal on 18 March, 1994 Equivalent citations: 1994 SCC (4) 538, JT 1994 (3) 348 Author: V N. Bench: Venkatachala N. (J) PETITIONER: COL. SIR HARINDER SINGH BRAR B. BAHADUR Vs. RESPONDENT: BIHARILAL DATE OF JUDGMENT18\/03\/1994 BENCH: VENKATACHALA N. (J) BENCH: VENKATACHALA N. [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-64395","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Col. Sir Harinder Singh Brar B. ... vs Biharilal on 18 March, 1994 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/col-sir-harinder-singh-brar-b-vs-biharilal-on-18-march-1994\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Col. Sir Harinder Singh Brar B. ... vs Biharilal on 18 March, 1994 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/col-sir-harinder-singh-brar-b-vs-biharilal-on-18-march-1994\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1994-03-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-07-14T02:50:06+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"31 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/col-sir-harinder-singh-brar-b-vs-biharilal-on-18-march-1994#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/col-sir-harinder-singh-brar-b-vs-biharilal-on-18-march-1994\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Col. Sir Harinder Singh Brar B. &#8230; vs Biharilal on 18 March, 1994\",\"datePublished\":\"1994-03-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-14T02:50:06+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/col-sir-harinder-singh-brar-b-vs-biharilal-on-18-march-1994\"},\"wordCount\":6247,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/col-sir-harinder-singh-brar-b-vs-biharilal-on-18-march-1994#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/col-sir-harinder-singh-brar-b-vs-biharilal-on-18-march-1994\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/col-sir-harinder-singh-brar-b-vs-biharilal-on-18-march-1994\",\"name\":\"Col. Sir Harinder Singh Brar B. ... vs Biharilal on 18 March, 1994 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1994-03-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-14T02:50:06+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/col-sir-harinder-singh-brar-b-vs-biharilal-on-18-march-1994#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/col-sir-harinder-singh-brar-b-vs-biharilal-on-18-march-1994\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/col-sir-harinder-singh-brar-b-vs-biharilal-on-18-march-1994#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Col. Sir Harinder Singh Brar B. &#8230; vs Biharilal on 18 March, 1994\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Col. Sir Harinder Singh Brar B. ... vs Biharilal on 18 March, 1994 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/col-sir-harinder-singh-brar-b-vs-biharilal-on-18-march-1994","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Col. Sir Harinder Singh Brar B. ... vs Biharilal on 18 March, 1994 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/col-sir-harinder-singh-brar-b-vs-biharilal-on-18-march-1994","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1994-03-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-07-14T02:50:06+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"31 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/col-sir-harinder-singh-brar-b-vs-biharilal-on-18-march-1994#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/col-sir-harinder-singh-brar-b-vs-biharilal-on-18-march-1994"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Col. Sir Harinder Singh Brar B. &#8230; vs Biharilal on 18 March, 1994","datePublished":"1994-03-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-14T02:50:06+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/col-sir-harinder-singh-brar-b-vs-biharilal-on-18-march-1994"},"wordCount":6247,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/col-sir-harinder-singh-brar-b-vs-biharilal-on-18-march-1994#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/col-sir-harinder-singh-brar-b-vs-biharilal-on-18-march-1994","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/col-sir-harinder-singh-brar-b-vs-biharilal-on-18-march-1994","name":"Col. Sir Harinder Singh Brar B. ... vs Biharilal on 18 March, 1994 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1994-03-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-14T02:50:06+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/col-sir-harinder-singh-brar-b-vs-biharilal-on-18-march-1994#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/col-sir-harinder-singh-brar-b-vs-biharilal-on-18-march-1994"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/col-sir-harinder-singh-brar-b-vs-biharilal-on-18-march-1994#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Col. Sir Harinder Singh Brar B. &#8230; vs Biharilal on 18 March, 1994"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/64395","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=64395"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/64395\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=64395"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=64395"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=64395"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}