http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: DURGA DAS

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE COLLECTOR & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       07/08/1996

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. G.B. PATTANAIK (J)

CITATION:  1996 SCALE  (6)99

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Counsel for the appellant states that the office report dated July 16, 1996 has been complied with.      This 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 otherlands. In these  circumstances, the  appellant cannot be treated to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

be a  tenant of  Vijay Kumar  to claim  compensation on  the basis of his title as a tenant.      The 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.      The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.