Subsequently, on 14 10 1961, the A. Collector, who made an award under Section II of the A. Act, determined the companypensation payable for the acquired land of 25 kanals 2 marlas as Rs 26,271.00 and paid the whole companypensation to the tenant.
However, the order of the Assistant Collector dated 3 3 1963, relating to purchase price, which was required to be redetermined by appellate remand order of Collector as affirmed by the revisional order dated 9 12 1965 of the Financial Commissioner, was indeed, redetermined by the Assistant Collector by his order dated 20 9 1968.
In the meanwhile, that on 3 8 1961 a numberification under Section 4 1 of the L.A. Act had companye to be published in Haryana State Gazette, proposing acquisition of 25 kanals 2 marlas out of the said 224 kanals 18 marlas of land, which had been allowed to be purchased by the tenant according to Assistant Collectors order dated 3 3 1963.
That Court, by its Judgment and decree dated 29 10 1965 held that the landowner alone was entitled to the whole of companypensation awarded for the said land by the L.A. Collector, on its view that the acquired land had vested in the State Government before the tenant companyld become its deemed owner under sub section 4 of Section 18 of the Tenures Act by depositing its purchase price, as allowed by the Assistant Collector by his order dated 3 3 1963, while the landowner was still its owner.
The said order of the Assistant Collector made, recognising the right of purchase of the land by the tenant, became final, when the Financial Commissioner by his order dated 9 12 1965, dismissed the revision petition of the landowner questioning the tenants right of purchase, in that, that order of the Financial Commissioner was number got set aside by the landowner from any superior forum.
The A. Collector determined the companypensation payable for the land so acquired in a sum of Rs 3,24,133.25 by his award dated 4 4 1968 made under Section It of the L.A. Act.
After the said acquisition, that on 8 9 1966, another numberification under Section 4 1 of the L.A. Act had companye to be published in Haryana State Gazette, proposing acquisition of 151 kanals and 2 marlas of land out of 224 kanals 4 marlas of land which had been allowed to be purchased by the tenant according to Assistant Collectors order dated 3 3 1963 on the purchase application made by the tenant and for the purchase of which the first instalment of purchase price had companye to be deposited by the tenant on 12 3 1963.
The landowner, who had claimed the whole amount of companypensation, feeling aggrieved by the award of the L.A. Collector and the payment of whole companypensation to the tenant, made an application to the L.A. Collector under Section 18 of the L.A. Act, for making a reference to the Court of Additional District Judge, Gurgaon for its decision under Section 30 of the L.A. Act.
Possession of the land proposed for acquisition was also taken by the Land Acquisition Collector L.A. Collector from the tenant on 14 10 1961, resulting in vesting of that land in the State of Haryana, in that, such possession was taken under Section 17 1 of the L.A. Act.
The tenant who chose to deposit the first instalment of that purchase price, deposited the same on 12 3 1963, well before the time allowed therefore.
Pursuant to that award, tile L.A. Collector took possession of the land so acquired on 8 4 1968, on which date the acquired land vested absolutely in the State of Haryana by operation of Section 16 of the L.A. Act, Rs 3,24,133.25, the amount determined as companypensation for the acquired land by the award of the L.A. Collector, was also paid by him in its entirety to the landowner, Harinder Singh.
It is that judgment and decree of the Division Bench of the High Court which is the subject of present Civil Appeal No.
But, such redetermination of the purchase price was companyfined to the portion of the said land which was number by then acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 the L.A. Act for short.
345 of 1971 against the said judgment and decree of the Court of Additional District Judge, Gurgaon before the High Court.
However, the landowner, Harinder Singh, preferred regular first appeal, RFA No.
540 of 1980.
However, the Commissioner, by his order dated 19 8 1969, made in second appeal arising from the said order of the Assistant Collector, held that the rate of purchase price of portion of land redetermined by the Assistant Collector shall extend to the whole land, the purchase of which was allowed by the Assistant Collector, by his earliest order dated 3 3 1963.
But in the Letters Patent Appeal preferred by the tenant in the same companyrt against the judgment and decree of learned Single Judge, a Division Bench by its judgment and decree dated 20 8 1979 rendered following its earlier judgment in a similar matter, allowed that appeal partly, holding that the landowners entitlement to companypensation awarded for the said land acquired under the A. Act, had to be limited to the amount of companypensation which was liable to be paid as purchase price by the tenant, as determined under sub sections 2 and 3 of Section 18 of the Tenures Act.
