Vs. The Collector & Ors  INSC 909 (7 August 1996)
K.Ramaswamy, K.G.B. Pattanaik (J)
1996 SCALE (6)99
O R D
for the appellant states that the office report dated July 16, 1996 has been complied with.
appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the High Court of Himachal
Pradesh, Shimla made in M.F.A.No.24/80 on May 5, 1984. The only question is: whether
the-appellant is a tenant in occupation of the land? He claimed that he was
entitled to compensation in respect of subject matter of acquisition as tenant.
The reference Court and the High Court recorded as a fact that the appellant is
not a tenant and, therefore, is not entitled to the share in the compensation
as a tenant. The undisputed facts are that 14 canals 18 marlas of land belonged
to the family consisting of Kishori Lal, Kewal Krishan and Koushalya, their
sister. Kishori Lal and Koushalya sold their respective suitable shares. Kewal Krishan
also sold his specified share to the appellant. It would appear that in the
revenue records the name of the appellant has been entered as a qualifying
tenant by reason of sale when the land to an extent of land admeasuring one
canal, 5 marlas; 2 canals, 3 marlas belonged to Vijay Kumar were acquired by
the Government. The appellant laid claim as a tenant in respect thereof. The
courts below held that since he purchased a specified share from Kewal Krishan
he cannot be considered to be as a tenant in respect of in other lands and,
therefore, is not entitled to the compensation. We find that the view taken by
the High Court is in conformity with law. Mutation entries do not confer any
title to the property. It is only an entry for collection of the land revenue
from the person in possession. The title to the property should be on the basis
of the title they acquired to the land and not by mutation entries. Admittedly,
the appellant has purchased some lands from Kewal Krishan one of the brothers
of the family to the extent of his specified share. No lease deed was executed
it respect of other lands.
these circumstances, the appellant cannot be treated to be a tenant of Vijay
Kumar to claim compensation on the basis of his title as a tenant.
Court below is directed to pay over the amount to Vijay Kumar and if the amount
is withdrawn by the appellant, Bank-guarantee should be encashed and the
balance amount would be paid over to the appellant. If the amount was not
withdrawn the bank guarantee given by the appellant is directed to be discharged.
appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.