419 to 421 of 1959, whereas Sardarani Gurdial Kaurs appeal is Civil Appeal No.
In dealing with this question the High Court took the view that the alleged reckless extravagance of the father on which the son relied was number relevant.
The High Court then dealt with the appeal preferred by Amrao Singh, and it companyfirmed the finding of the arbitrator that the property acquired originally formed part of Cis Sutlej States and that in regard to the said States the rule is number well settled that the Jagirs large or small in Cis Sutlej States are number transferable and are even exempt from attachment as political pensions, the holder for the time being having only life interest in the estate, the companypus of which is to be kept intact so that it may pass from heir to heir and lapse in favour of the Government in the absence of any legal heir.
42 to 44, 60 to 62 and 55 of 1955 respectively.
The State of Punjab preferred four appeals 67 to 70 of 1955 Satinder Singh preferred three appeals 42 to 44 of 1955 Amrao Singh preferred four appeals 59 to 62 of 1955 and Sardarani Gurdial Kaur preferred Appeal No.
All these companytentions have been rejected by the High Court and the appeals preferred by the State have been dismissed.
In its appeal the State urged before the High Court that Satinder Singh was number companypetent to object to the companypensation offered by the State and so the proceedings held before the arbitrator were invalid.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by GAJEMDRAGADKAR, J. This is a group of seven appeals all of which arise from the same land acquisition proceedings in respect of which the Punjab Government originally issued a numberification under s. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, on March 23, 1948.
396 to 398 of 59 and Respondent No.
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated November 5, 1958, of the Punjab High Court in First Appeals from Orders Nos.
55 of 1955.
1 In C. As.
15,726.00 Rs.
The appeals preferred by Satinder Singh are Civil Appeals Nos.
396 to 398 and 419 to 421 of 1959, and 152 of 1960.
These orders became the subject matter of several appeals in the Punjab High Court.
It also rejected his plea that the amount of companypensation ordered to be divided between him and his father Amrao Singh should be deposited in Government Securities.
The State has number challenged the companyrectness of the decision of the High Court, and so we are number companycerned in the present appeals with the merits of the pleas raised by the State before the High Court.
The High Court also thought that since the State in whose favour the estate may finally lapse owing to escheat did number object to the apportionment made by the arbitrator there was numberreason to interfere with the actual order.
The large Jagirs owned by the families are situated in Kharar and Rupar Tehsils of Ambala District and they formed part of the area formerly known as Cis Sutlej States.
1,82,813.00 15 acquisi tion charges Saneta Rs.
That is how this group of seven appeals arises from the same land acquisition proceedings taken by the State of Punjab in respect of the lands situated in the four villages already mentioned.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
152 of 60 .
as to apportionment between father and son which the arbitrator thought was reasonable.
3 In C. A. No.
396 to 398 of 59 and Respondent No.
C. Mathur, for the appellant In C. A. No.
419 to 421 of 59 , Respondent No.
February 2.
55,377.00 Giddarpur Rs.
C. Setalvad, Attorney General for India, S. N. Andley, B. Dadachanji and Rameshwar Nath, for the appellants in As.
152 of 1960.
The said land was actually acquired on May 20,1951.
Under the provisions of this Act the Government requisitioned the land in question for the purpose of resettling the persons who were likely to be evicted from their fands as a result of the companystruction of the new Capital.
That is how the principal point urged by the father against the claim set up by his son was rejected and his appeals were dismissed.
This companytention was likewise rejected by the High Court, and it was held that under the relevant Act of 1948, it was number permissible to award interest on the amount of companypensation, The result was that the decision of the arbitrator was fully companyfirmed and all the appeals preferred before the High Court were dismissed.
1 In C. As.
It was also urged alternatively that Amrao Singh and Sardarani Gurdial Kaur were number entitled to companypensation at the higher rates directed by the arbitrator, and that the benefit of the award should be available only to Satinder Singh, and it was companytended that the amount of companypensation fixed by the arbitrator was excessive.
In the appeals preferred by Satinder Singh the High Court rejected his plea that the valuation fixed by the arbitrator in respect of certain properties was inadequate.
It appears that these villages originally formed part of the area companyered by the Cls Sutlej States.
The order thus passed by the arbitrator was recorded by him in the four cases tried before him in respect of the four villages.
In the result the three appeals filed by Satinder Singh were dismissed.
The High Court also held that even if the character of the property was companysidered from the angle of the general custom of Punjab the same companyclusion followed because the property in question was undoubtedly ancestral immovable property in the hands of the father qua his son and as such the father had numberright to alienate it to the prejudice of his son without legal necessity or any other companypelling reason.
The appeal preferred by Sardarani Gurdial Kaur also met the same fate and was dismissed.
396 to 398 of 1959 Amrao Singhs appeals are Civil Appeals Nos.
93,309.00 Rs.
This decision of the High Court is challenged by special leave by the three claimants Amrao Singh, Satinder Singh and Sardarani Gurdial Kaur respectively.
Gopal Singh and D. Gupta, for Respondent No.
In regard to the village of Dhirpur, Amrao Singhs wife Sardarani Gurdial Kaur claimed that she was in possession of the said village as it was charged for the payment of her maintenance by a companypromise decree passed in her favour and against her husband Amrao Singh.
V. Viswanatha Sastri and G. C. Mathur, for the appellant In C. As.
This land forms part of a Jagir known as Singh Purian and companyprises the areas of villages Mataur, Dhirpur, Saneta and Giddarpur in the District of Ambala.
No action was, however, taken in pursuance of this numberification.
419 to 421 of 59 and 152 of 60 .
1.52 of 60 .
1,17,912.00Rs.
2 in C. As.
2 In C. As.
42,179.00 Rs.
396 to 398 of 59 and Respondent No.
419 of 59 and 152 of 60 .
27,640.00 Dhirpur Rs.
By this numberification the State Government declared its intention to acquire land in the Ambala District for the companystruction of the new Capital for East Pun ab.
Meanwhile the Punjab Legislature passed the East Punjab Requisition of Immovable Property Temporary Powers Act, 48 of 1948.
The estate of Amrao Singh was at the relevant time being managed by the Court of Wards.
