Hem Chand and ors. Vs. Hari Kishan Rohtagi and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- land acquisition act (1 of 1894)sections 18, 23 & 54: [s.b.sinha & cyriac joseph,jj] acquisition of agricultural lands - classification of land on basis of evidence by reference judge held, a holder of a land has a statutory right to ask the collector by a written application that the matter be referred for determination of the court in regard to amount of compensation in terms of section 18 while taking objection to the amount of compensation awarded by the collector. the owner of the land may raise various contentions including the measurement of the land, the amount of compensation, the persons to whom it is payable, etc. for the purpose of getting amount of compensation determined, the applicant may furthermore raise contentions as regards classification of land, non-grant and/or inadequate grant of compensation under different heads, etc. the reference judge, thus, has a duty to consider all such objections. for the said purpose, opportunities must be given to the applicant to establish that the findings arrived at by the collector in his award in respect of grant of compensation were based on a wrong classification of land and/or ignoring the relevant materials therefore. where the reference judge determined the question in regard to the classification of land on the basis of the evidence adduced before it by individual land owners; by way of example, having regard to the fact that claimants had failed to prove that the land had any irrigation facility, the reference judge classified the lands as jirayat lands. held that, the finding of fact arrived at by the reference judge on the basis of the materials brought on record could not be interfered with by the high court on the surmises and conjectures. if the state was aggrieved thereby, it was bound to show that the findings arrived at by the reference court was not sustainable having regard to the materials brought on record. the opinion of the high court that saplings varying from 1 to 3 years of age were available for plantation from the government as well as private horticulture nurseries was based on surmises and conjectures, there being no such contention and no material for formation of such an opinion was brought on record. in certain cases, the conduct of a person claiming higher amount of compensation by taking recourse to certain acts to show development of the lands for obtaining better compensation might be a subject-matter of the judicial notice but even therein some materials were available for arriving at a conclusion. it was, therefore, impermissible to take recourse to surmises and conjectures across the board that even the agriculturist of a remote village whose lands were being acquired for undertaking an irrigation project, would take recourse thereto. no rule in absolute terms could be laid down therefor. it was one thing to say that any circular letter issued by the state allowing certain guidelines were not applicable but it was another thing to say that when the officers of the state themselves prepare a report on the basis thereof, the high court would interfere therewith on certain assumptions. section 23: [s.b.sinha & cyriac joseph,jj] agricultural land - orchard and forest -valuation of these two categories held, indisputably, valuation of agricultural land on the one hand and valuation of orchard and forest land on the other would stand on different footings. whereas in the former case, the known legal principles particularly with reference to the exemplars will have to be applied, in the latter a different principle, namely, multiplier of eight or ten, as the case may be, on the basis of the multiplicand, namely, yield from the trees or plantation would be applicable. the market value of the land cannot be determined both on the basis of sale instance as also on capitalization method keeping in view the fact that it had fruit bearing trees. when an orchard is acquired the nature thereof can be found from the revenue records of right and similarly when an agricultural land is acquired the nature thereof can be ascertained from the revenue records. if, however, on an agricultural or other categories of land in which a few trees stand, the question as regards the valuation of the said trees as such must be ascertained for the purpose of finding out the actual market value of the land acquired. a distinction must further be borne in mind where common evidence are adduced in respect of a large number of parties by both sides and, in particular, the principle of valuation having regard to the peculiar features of the village in question and acquisition of land which belongs to one or two persons and specific features of the land for the said purpose may have to be taken into consideration. - 1 to 4 as well as the other sub-tenants are concerned there can be no legitimate complaint of sub-letting because even according to the petition of the appellants they were inducted as the sub-tenants with his consent.order1. this dissatisfied landlord is in appeal by special leave against the judgment and order of the high court of delhi in second appeal nos. 112-112/1979 112-112/1979 dated february 23, 1996.2. the appellants filed suit no. e-384/70 in the court of shri m.a. khan, vi additional rent controller, delhi seeking eviction of respondent nos. 1 to 5 on three grounds; however, the only ground which survives is provided under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 14 of the delhi rent control act, 1958 (for short 'the act'). the allegation of the appellants was that respondent no.5 was inducted as sub-tenant without this written consent of the appellants and therefore respondent nos.1 to 4 who are the tenants should be evicted from the said premises. the respondents took the plea that the consent was obtained to sublet the premises.3. the learned rent controller, the rent tribunal and the high court found that subletting in favour of the 5th respondent was without the consent of the appellants and ordered his eviction. however, the grievance of the appellants is that the other six sub-tenants are occupying various portions of the tenanted premises and therefore the courts ought to have ordered eviction of respondent nos.1 to 4 instead of confining the order of eviction to respondent no.5, one sub-tenant only.it appears from the pleadings that in the eviction petition the landlord stated that out of 8 sub-tenants, six sub-tenants were inducted into possession of different portions with his consent. if that be so, neither the tenants nor the sub-tenant could have been ordered to be evicted merely because one of the sub-tenants was inducted into possession of a portion of tenanted premises without the consent of the landlord. so far as respondent nos.1 to 4 as well as the other sub-tenants are concerned there can be no legitimate complaint of sub-letting because even according to the petition of the appellants they were inducted as the sub-tenants with his consent. this is not a fit case to order eviction of respondents 1 to 4 under section 14(1)(b) of the act.we therefore find no illegality in the order of the high court warranting our interference. the appeals are therefore dismissed, but in the circumstances of the case, without costs.

Judgment:
ORDER

1. This dissatisfied landlord is in appeal by special leave against the judgment and order of the High Court of Delhi in Second Appeal Nos. 112-112/1979 112-112/1979 dated February 23, 1996.

2. The appellants filed Suit No. E-384/70 in the Court of Shri M.A. Khan, VI Additional Rent Controller, Delhi seeking eviction of respondent nos. 1 to 5 on three grounds; however, the only ground which survives is provided under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short 'the Act'). The allegation of the appellants was that respondent no.5 was inducted as sub-tenant without this written consent of the appellants and therefore respondent nos.1 to 4 who are the tenants should be evicted from the said premises. The respondents took the plea that the consent was obtained to sublet the premises.

3. The learned Rent Controller, the Rent Tribunal and the High Court found that subletting in favour of the 5th respondent was without the consent of the appellants and ordered his eviction. However, the grievance of the appellants is that the other six sub-tenants are occupying various portions of the tenanted premises and therefore the courts ought to have ordered eviction of respondent nos.1 to 4 instead of confining the order of eviction to respondent no.5, one sub-tenant only.It appears from the pleadings that in the eviction petition the landlord stated that out of 8 sub-tenants, six sub-tenants were inducted into possession of different portions with his consent. If that be so, neither the tenants nor the sub-tenant could have been ordered to be evicted merely because one of the sub-tenants was inducted into possession of a portion of tenanted premises Without the consent of the landlord. So far as respondent nos.1 to 4 as well as the other sub-tenants are concerned there can be no legitimate complaint of sub-letting because even according to the petition of the appellants they were inducted as the sub-tenants with his consent. This is not a fit case to order eviction of respondents 1 to 4 under Section 14(1)(b) of the Act.We therefore find no illegality in the order of the High Court warranting our interference. The appeals are therefore dismissed, but in the circumstances of the case, without costs.