Holding

The first respondent Sewa Ram is entitled only to the Bhumidhar’s portion of the compensation; the owners are not Bhumidhars for that land.

Summary

The Supreme Court examined a dispute arising from the acquisition of 196 bighas of land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, where the owners, a mortgagee, a tenant and a sub‑tenant (Sewa Ram) each claimed compensation. The owners argued that, having redeemed the mortgage under Section 15 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954, they became Bhumidhars and were therefore entitled to the entire compensation. Sewa Ram contended that, as a sub‑tenant who was in possession at the commencement of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, he acquired Bhumidhar rights under Section 13 and was entitled to the Bhumidhar’s share of the compensation. The Court held that Section 15(2) confers Bhumidhar status on a mortgagor only with respect to land personally cultivated by the mortgagee, and that where the land was let out, the tenant (or sub‑tenant) becomes the Bhumidhar of the let‑out portion. Consequently, the owners could not be declared Bhumidhars for the land in question, and Sewa Ram was entitled only to the Bhumidhar’s portion of the compensation. The appeals were dismissed and the first respondent was awarded costs.

Issues considered

Whether the sub‑tenant Sewa Ram, as a Bhumidhar under the Delhi Land Reforms Act, is entitled to the Bhumidhar’s share of compensation for land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act.
Whether the owners, by redeeming the mortgage under Section 15 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, become Bhumidhars and thus entitled to the full compensation.
Whether a delay or absence of formal declaration of Bhumidhar status defeats the entitlement to compensation.
Whether the Revenue Assistant had the authority to declare a person as Bhumidhar under the Act.

Legislation cited

Central Act IV of 1959
Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954s. 13, s. 13(1), s. 13(2), s. 15(1), s. 15(2), s. 15(4)
Land Acquisition Act, 1894s. 18, s. 32, s. 4
Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887s. 5

Subjects

Land acquisitionBhumidhar rightsDelhi Land Reforms ActCompensationMortgage redemptionTenancySub‑tenantSection 13Section 15

Judgment

'
FATEH SINGH AND ANOTHER ETC.
A
v.

SEWA RAM AND OTHERS ETC.

' - September 13, 1983 B
[D. A. DESAI, 0. CHJNNAPPA REDDY AND A. VAMDARAJAN, JJ.]

'
Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954-S.15 read with S: 13\-lnterpretation of-
Persons who cQn be declared Bhumidhars.-Declaration of Bhumidhars mandatory
-In spite of delay in or absence of declaration the tenant entitled to acquire C
.Bhumidhari rights acquires those rights. '

A certain extent of land was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act.
1894. The acquired land included a piece of land which had been mortgaged
by its owners and let out by the mortgagee to a tenant who in turn had let
·out to the first respondent in both the appeals. The Collector awarded com- D
pensation to the land-owners. The first respondent objected to the award on
> ; the ground that "since he had acquired the status of Bhumidhar under the
Delhi Land Ri.:forms Act, 1954 he was entitled to receive the entire compen-
sation. On an application made by the first respondent tte Collector made a
refecence to the District Judge. In the meantime in disposing of an application
under s. 15 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act made by the land-owners for
redemption of mortgage, the Revenue Assistant declared that the first respon· E
dent was Bhumidhar of the land which was in bis possession as sub-lessee with .
effect from the date of commencement of that Act. The Additional District
Judge held that the first Resp0ndent was entitled to the entire co1npensation.
The appeal filed by the land-owners wa's dismissed by the High Court. In
• r this appeal the land-owners submitted that since they had redeemed the
mortgage by resort to the provisions contained in s. 15(1) of the Delhi Land
Reforms Act, they had become Bhumidhars 'under s. · 15(2) of that Act and F
were, therefore, entitled to the entire compensa~ion as Bhumidhars which Was
rightly paid by the Collector.

Dismissing the appeals,

G
,• HELD : The first reSpondent is entitled to the Bhul:nidhar's portion of
compensation. [937 G]

Section 15(2) <lfthe Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 says that if the
Proprietor mottgagor applies for redemption of the mortgage under sub-sec. (1)
of sec. 15, he shall be declared as Bhumidhar only in respect of the mortgaged H
area which was h~ the personal cultivation of the mortgagee. In the present
case, before the commencement of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, the mortgagee
Ram Swarup ha<,i l~t the lan<,t in question ·to <;>ne lnder Singh and he in turn
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 11983) 3 s.c.a.
had sub-let the land to the first respondent Sewa Ram and he was in possession
of the same ·on the date of commencement of that Act. ThCrefore, the appel..
!ants in Civil Appeal 1195 of 1970 as owners could not have become Bhumidhars
in respect of that portion of land. [936 B-DJ

.Sub-sec. (4) of sec. 15 states that where any portion of the mortgaged
land has been let out to tenants they shall be declare a as Bhumidbars ·of the
B area let out to them. Therefore, the appellants in C. A. 1195of1970 could
not in law have been d.eclared as Bhumidhars under. s. 15(2) of ihe Delhi Land
-'
Reforms Act when that land. was adrllittedly under the cultivation of the first
respondent S_ewa Ram as subtenant under the mortgagee's tenant. [936 E·F]

Section 13(1) of the Act lays down that on the commencement of that
c Act, the Deputy Commissioner shall declare certain classes of tennnts as
Bhumidhars who shall, with effeCt from the same date, have all the rights and
be subject to.all the liabilities conferred or in1posed upon Bhumidhars ,under >-·
that Act. There could be no doubt that the first respondent Sewa Ram
would have' acquired Bhun1idhari rights under s. 13(1), of the Act on the
date of its commencement. Merely_ because there is some delay in the Deputy
Commissioner or Revenue Assistant declaring a tenant as Bhumidhar under
D the provisions of the Act or because there is no such _declaration at all the
0

tenant entitled to acquire such _rights under the Act from the date of 'i ts com-
mencement cannot be said to have not acquired those ri&hts having regard to the :. .
words of s. 13(2) of the Act which says that any person who acquires Bhumi-
dhari rights under any provisions of this Act shall have all the rights arid
shall be subject to all the liabilities conferred or imposed upon Bhumidhars
under this Act with effect from the _date of acquisition of thos'e rights. Stib-
E sections (2) and (4) of s. 15 cast an, obligation on the Deputy Commissioner
to dedare' as Bhurriidhars persons who have become enlitled.to that right under
. the proviSions of the Act by admission or acquisition under the provisiOnS of
the Act as Bhumidhars. [936 G; 937 A, D-FJ ·
'; ---..j

F CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos. 1195 &
1780 & of 1970.

, Appeals by Special leave from the Judgment , and Order dated
the 30th Day of January, l970 of the Delhi High Court in Civil
•
Regu)ar First Appeal No. 55 ·and 56 of 1963.
G
B. Datta and H.K. Puri for the Appellant in CA. 1195/70.
'
V.D. Mahajan and M.C. Dhingra for Respondent.·

H - M.S. Gujaral, P.D. Sharma and Ms. Bani Gujaral for
Respondent in CA. 1195 & Appellant in CA. 1780/70.

H.K. Puri for Respondent in CA. 1780/70.
FATEH SINGH v. SEWA RAM (Varadarajan 1.) 93i
V.D. Mahajan and M.C. Dhingra for Respondent in CA.
1780/70. A'
.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

VARADARAJ~N, J. These appeals by certificate are directed against
the judgment of a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Regular
First Appeals 55 and 56 of 1963 filed against the ju<lgment dated B
24.7.1961 of the Additional DistricUudge, Delhi in reference made
by the first resporident Sewa Ram under s. 18 of the Land Acquisi·
tion Act, 1984 which was.treated .as a reference under s. 32 of that
Act. Pursuant to a notification issued under s. 4 cif the Land
A'Cquisition Act, 1894 in'F~bruary or March, 1955, 2626 bighas and c
14 biswas of land situate in Kha'mpur village beyond Alipur on the
Kamal road was acquired for the construction of a short.wave
transmitter for the All India Radio. Various persons ineluding the·
appellants in these appeals put forward claims for compensation,
some of them claiming as owners of some pieces of the land, some as
non-occupancy tenants and some as sub-tenants inducted by tenants D
or mortgagees. The Collector considered the claims and passed
an Award dated 27.2.1965 ·and a supplemeniary Award dated
... 13.3.1965. Some of the,tenants objected to the award of compensa·
tion to the laniilords on the ground that under s.8 of the
Delhi Land Reforms Act,' 1954 they ·had acquired the status of E
Bhumidhars and as such were entitled to receive the entire compensa·
tion in respect of the .portion of land which was in their possession
on the date of acquisition to the exclusion of the.landlords. The~eup·
cin, the Collector made a reference to the District Judge, Delhi under
~- r s. 32 of the Land Acquisition Act on. 23.7.1956 in one case. The
landlords contended before the Additional District Judge, before F
whom the Collector's reference came up for consideration that the
. tenants had no present right to receive any compensation. The .
Additional District Judge iound on the basis of the tenants' applica·
tion dated 28.10.1955 that they had sought only a declaration under
s. 13 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act and that since the requisite G
declaration in their favour had not been made by the Deputy
. ·' Commissioner to the effect that they have acquired bhumidhari rights
under the Act they had no right to claim compensation for the
lands in respect of which they-claimed to be non-occupancy tenants.
The Additional District Judge found that even if the allegation of 8
the tenants that they had applied for grant of. bhumidhari rights was
correct they had, no present right and they were, therefore not
entitled to claim the compensation. Before the Single Judge of the .
'

SUPREME COURT REPORls [i983] 3 s.c.tt

High Court they took up the stand that the declaration under s. 14
A of the Delhi Land Reforms Act had been issued and they had thus
acquired bhumidhari rights, entitling them to the compensation. But
they failed to prove 'that claim and ·had not produced any such.
declaration dated 23.6.1956 with retrospective effect from 20.7.1954
when the Delhi Land Reforms Act came into force. They did not
produce any such declaration before the. · learned Judges who
.B constituted the Division Bench in LPA Nos. 103 and 108 ·of 1960. ·
The learned Judges, therefore, held that they were not entitled to
assail the judgment of the Additional District Judge _on a difierent
ground in the Letters Patent Appeals. They agreed with the learned
Single Judge that the tenants cannot lay claim to the compensation
c without proving their case that they have acquired bhumidhari rights
and dismissed the appeals observing, however, that the observation
of the Additional District Judge that it )Viii not be difficult for the
tenants to claim the compensation if they subsequently obtained the
declaration regarding acquisition of bhumidhari rights with
retrospective effect is correct.
D

The present appeals arise out of the judgment of a Division
Bench of the Delhi High Court in Regular First Appeals 55 and- 56
of 1963 which bad bceh filed against the order of the Additional
E District Judge, Delhi in Land Acquisition Case 18 of 1959. Inder
Singh and his brothers, appellants in C.A. 1780 of 1970 which arises
out ofRFA 55 of 1963, who haC! been recorded in the revenue-
accounts as owners of 196 bighas out of the extent acquired had
executed a possessory mortgage over that piece of ]and in favour of
one Ram Swarup. The ;,.,ortgage~ Ram Swarup had leased that
land to one lnder Singh who in turn had sub-leased that land to
Sewa Ram, who is the first sespondent in these two appeals. The
owners, mortgagee, tenant and sub~tenant claimed con1pensation in
respe't of the said 196 bighas of land. The Delhi Land Reforms
Act, 1954 came into force on 20.7.1954 prior to the date of notifi-
G cation made under s. 4 · of the Land Acquisition Act. That Act
provides for abolition of the zamindari sy~tem with the object of
creating a uniform body of peasant proprietors without interme-
diaries and has brought about two categories of persons in relation to
the lands, namely, Bhumidhars and Asamii. The sub-tenant Sewa
H Ram did not either claim any compensation before the Collector as
Bhumidhar or challenge the claim of the owners for the compen-
sation in respect of the said 196 bighas of land which was under his
cultivation, but claimed compensation orrly for the extinguishment •
I
FATEH SINGH v. SEWA RAM (Varadarajan, J.) 933
of his right as sub-Jessee. The Collector found Sewa Ram to be in
possession of that extent out of the acquired land and ·assessed the A.
. total compensation in respect thereof at Rs. 29,774.07 and. awarded
that amount to the owners and only a sum of Rs. 500 to Sewa . Ram
as compensation for the extinguishment of his rights as sub-lessee
and paid those amounts to the owners and Sewa Ram . on 19.3.1.956.
But the other claimants 35 to 56 before the Collector who were
tenants of some other extents out of the acquired land claimed
B
compensation in respect of those extents on the ground that they
were prospective bhumidhars under the Land Reforms Act and
challenged the rights of the owners to claim any share in the
compensation. This claim gave rise u)timately to LPA Nos. 103 and
108 of 1960 referred to above. The first respondent Sewa Ram who c
had received only Rs. 500 on 19.3.1956 as compensation for the
extinguishment of his rights as sub-lessee made an application before
the Collector on l.5.1956 for a reference being made to the Civil
Court under s. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. Then he claimed that
he was entitled to the entire compensation as Bhumidhar or to' at
least a sum of Rs. 17,000 on account of improvements effected by D
him. The Collector made the reference under s. 18 of the Land
Acquisition Act to the District Judge, Delhi on 4.5.1959 in this
case. Meanwhile, an application under s. 15 of the Delhi Land
Reforms Act, 1954 was made by the owners for redemption of the
possessory mortgage executed in favour of Ram Swarup before the E
Revenue Assistant, Delhi who disposed of that application on
20.7.1959 declaring that the sub-tenant Sewa Ram was Bhumidhar..
of the said 196 bighas of land which was in his possession as sub-
lessee _with effect from the date of commencement of the Delhi Land
•. 1
Reforms Act, 1954. The Additional District Judge treated the
reference under s. 18 as one under s. 32 of the La9d Acquisition Act
and issued notices to the owners who had already received the
compensation of Rs. 29,774.07 on 19.3.1956 and uitimately held that
the ffrst respondent Sew a Ram was entitled to. the entire compensa-
tion and passed a decree for payment of that amount·to him against
the owners of that portion of the land and the Union of India for G
whose benefit the acquisition was made. The owners and the Union
oflndia.filed RFA 55 of 1963 and RFA 56 of 1963 respectively
challenging that decree.

B
The first point raised by the owners before 'the High Court wils
that the Revenue Assistant, Delhi who had issued the Bhumidnari
Certificate to Sewa Ram had not been empowered by the Chief
\
I
'.
I

SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1983] 3 S.C.R.

Commissioner to exercise the powers of a Deputy Commissioner in
A that behalf and, therefore, the' certificate was not valid in law. This
contention was rejected by the learned Judges of the High Court on
. the ground that the definition of Deputy Commissioner in s. 3 (6) of ·''
the Delhi Land R~forms Act, as it stood then, included a Collector
and a Revenue Assistant, and they held that the Revenue Assistant
was competent to declare 'the sub-tenant Sewa. Ram as · Bhumidhar
B
under the/provision ~f the Act. The learned Judges rejected the
second contention raised by the owners that the sub-lessee's appli-
cation under s. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act was barred by time.
The third contention raised by the owners was that as the notification
under s. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was made after the date of
c commencement of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, the provisions of the
laiter Act would not apply in respect of the cpmpensation· payable
for the acquired land. This contention. JN as also rejecte.d by the
learned Judge of the Delhi High Court. The fourth contention urged
on behalf of the owners was that as the sub-tenant Sewa Ram had
not, niact'e any, claim for compensation before the Collector'· as
D Bhumidhar or as a prospective Bhumidhar, he was not entitled to
claim any compensation subsequently as Bhumidhar. This conten-
tion also was rejected by the learned Judges of the High Court on
.the ground that by operation of law the sub-tenant became_
·"' .
. Bhumidhar from the date of commencement of the Delhi Land
Reforms Act, which was prior' to the date of notification issued
under s. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. The fifth contention raised
by the owners was that the decision of the Additi~nal District Judge,
Delhi dated 8.12.1956 which culminated in the decision of the '.
High Court in the aforesaid LPA 103 of 1960 constitued resjudicata.
That ·contention was rejected on the ground that the sub-tenant
F Sewa Ram was not a party to that decision, and he is, therefore, not
· bound by it. None of these five objections was urged before us by
the learned counsel for the appellants in both the appeals.

G The only contention urged before us was - a. part of the last
contention urged before the learned Judges of the· High Court,
namely, that the j\dditional District Judge could not have pa_ssed
the decree for a s\Jm of Rs 29,774.07 against the owners much less
the.Union oflndia. The learned Judges allowed RFA 56of1963 filed
H by the Union of India Qn the ground that before the amount was
1actually paid to the owners on 19.3.1956 the sub-tentant Sewa Ram
· 'did ;,ot make any claim to the compensation as Bhumidhar or as
prospective Bhumidhar. In so f~r as the sub-tenant Sewa · Rlam is
, I
FATEH SINGH v. SEWA RAM (Varadarajan, J.) 935
concerned, the learned .Judges of the>High Court held that he had
been declared to be the Bhumidhar with effect from the date of com- A
mencement of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 in respect of the said
196 bighas of land and he was entitled to the compensation of
Rs. 29,77~.07. They dismissed RFA 55 of 1963 filed. by the owners.
Hence these appeals by certificate.
D
Mr. B. Datta, Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants in
C.A. 1195 of 1970, admitted that the first respondent Sewa Ram was
in actual possession of the said 196 bighas of land on the date of
the notification under s. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act made after
'the date of commencement of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 as
sub-tenant who had been inducted by the tenant to whom the land
had been leased by the mortgagee Ram Swarup and submiited that
subsequent to the notification under ·s. 4 of the Land Acquisition
Act the mortgagors had redeemed the 'mortgage by rernrt to the
provisions contained ins. 15 (I) of the Delhi Land.Reforms Act
within the period of nine months presc~ibed therefor and had thus D.
become Bhumidhars under s. 15 (2) of that Act and they arc, there- ,
fore, entitled to the aforesaid sum of Rs. 29,774.07 as Bhumidhars
• ,L and were rightly paid by the Collector on 19.3.1956. ·

Sections 15 (I) and (2) of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954
read thus: E
"15 (I) A mortga.gee in possession of an estate or
share therein shall cease to have any right in such estate or
share; if the proprietor mortgagor deposits the mortgage
' money together with interest thereon in Government trea-
sury and applies for 'redemption of the· mortgage in the
proper court, within a period of nine months from the
commencement of this Act.
'
(2) If the proprietor mortgagor deposits the amount
and applies for redemption as provided in sub-section (!), ·
G
he shall be declared as Bhumidhar in respect of the
mortgaged area which was under the personal. cultivation
of the mortgagee on the date of such application for
redemption and, if any part of the mortgaged area was 1:i
on the said date let out to a tenant, sueh tenant shall be
'declared .as Bhnmidhar in respect of the area that .was so
let out to him." ·
936 SUPREME COuRT RBPORTS [i 983] ~ s.c.a.

Sub-section (4) of s. 15 which has to be noticed, reads thus:

"15 (4) Where the area mortgaged or part thereof is
let out to tenants, the mortgagee shall be declared as the
Bhumidhar of the part under his personal cultivation and
the tenants shall be declared .!IS .Bhumidhars of their
B respective areas let out to them".
I
The argument of Mr. Datta overlooks the important part of
s. 15 (2) of the Delhi Land Reforms A.ct which says that the
mortgagor shall be declared as Bhumidhar only in respect of the
c mortgaged area which was in the personal cultivation of the mort-
gagee when he submitted that the owners became Bhumidhars of the
land under the provisions of s., 15 (2) of the Act. It is common· ...
ground that before the commencement of the Delhi Land Reforms
Act, the mortgagee Ram Swarup had let the land in question to one
, Inder Singh and he in turn hap sub-let the land to the first. respon-
D dent Sewa Ram and he was in possession of the same on the date
of commencement of that Act. Therefore, the appellants in C.A.
1195of1970 as owners could not have become Bhumidhars in
respect of that portion. If they had obtained any such declaration
under s. 15 (2) of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, it could have been
E only by misleading the Court to believe that the said poition was
under the personal cultivation of the mortgagee and not in the
possession of any tenant under .the mortgage or his sub-tenant. The
argument of Mr. Datta also overlooks the provisions of sub-section
(4) of s. l 5 which states that where any portion of the mortgaged
land has been let out .to tenants they shall be declared as Bhumidhars
F of the area let out to them. Therefore, the appellants in C.A. 1195
of 19 70 could not in law have been declared a:s Bhumidhars under
s. 15 (2) of the Delhi ·Land Reforms Act when that land was
admittedly under the cultivation of the first respondent Sewa Ram as
· sub-tenant under the mortgagee's tenant. Section 13 0). of the Delhi
G Land Reforms Act Jays down that on the commencent of that Act,
the Deputy Commissioner shall declare certain classes of t~nants as
Bhumidhars who shall, with effect from the same date, have': all the
rights and be subject to all the liablities conforred or ·impps~<l upon
Bhumidhars under that Act. An occupancy tenant, except a tenant
H under s. 5 of the Punjab.Tenancy Act, 1887, and a non-occupancy
tenant who pays rent at the revenue rates with or without Malikhana
are two of the categories of tenants mentioned in s. 13 . (I) of the
Act. It has been contended before us by the learned counsel for the
FATEH SINGH v. SEWA R~M (Varadarajan J.,) 93'7

appellants in both the appeals that the first respondent Sewa Ram
would not fall under any of these two categories of tenants or that A
any distinction has been made in ,the Delhi Land Reforms Act
between a tenant and a sub-tenant. Therefore, there could be no
doubt that the· first respondent Scwa: Ram would have acquired·
bhumidhari rights under s•. 13 (I) of the Act on the date of its
commencement. Section 15 (2) of the Act was no doubt substituted B
bys. 7 of the Central Act IV of 1959 for the original sub-section. It
has not, however, been contended before us that sub-section (4),. as
substituted, wlll not have effect from the date of commencement of
the principal Act, namely, 20.7.1954. Section 13 (2) of the Act says
that "every person, who after the commencement of this Act is
admitted to land as Bhumidhar or who acquires Bhumidhari ·rights c
under any provisions of this Act, shall have all the rights and be
subject to all the liabilitie> conferred or imopsed upon Bhumidhars
under this Act with effect from the date <if admission or acquisition,
as the case may bi'. Tilo present case b'sore m is one of the tenant
acquiring bhumidhari rights under the Act on the date of its eommen-
cement and not of his being admitted to Bhumidhari rigths after the
D
date of commencement of the Act. Merely because there was some
delay in the Deputy Commissioner o~ Revenue Assistant declaring
a tenant as Bhumidhar under the provisions of the Act or because
there is no such declaration at all the tenant entitled to acquire such
rights under the Act from the date of its commencement cannot be E
said to have not acquired those rights having regard to the words of
s. 13 (2) of the Act which says that any person who acquires bhumi-
dhari rights under any provisions of this Act shall have all the rights
and shall be subject to all the liabilities conferred or imposed upon
Bhumidhars under this Act with effect from the date of acquisition of
those rights. Sub-sections (2) and (4) of s. 15 cast an obligation on F
the Deputy Commissioner to ~eclare as Bhumidhars persons who
have become entitled to that right under the prov·isions of the Act
by admission or 'acquisition under the provisions of the Act as
Bhmpidhars. In these circumstances, it is not possible to accept the
contention of Mr. Datta that the ap,pellants in C.A. 1195 who were G
owners, have become Bhumi<lhars by reason of redemption of the
mortgage under the provisions of s. 15 (I) of the Act and that the
first respondent Sewa Ram will not be entitled to the Bhumidhar's
portion of the compensation.
~ H
Mr. M.S. Gujral, Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants .
in C.A. 1780 of 1970 submitted that Inder Singh and Bhagwati
938 SUPREME COURT REPORTs 11~83) 3 s.c.it
/

Prasad alone has received the sum of Rs. 29,774.07 and, therefore
. ·- '
A they alone should be made liable to .pay that amount to the. first
respondent if the appellants fail to succeed in these appeals. Inder
Singh is the third respondent in C.A. 1195 of 1970 and the first
appellant in C.A. 1}80 of 1970. Bhagwati Prasad is the second
appellant in C.A. 1195 of 1970, and fourth respondent in C.A. 1780
of 1970. They were respondents 2 and4 in LPA 103 of 1960. There
B is no doubt an admission of these two persons that in a partition the
portion which was under the cultivation of the first respondent Sewa
Ram had been allotted to their share and that consequently they
alone had received the compensation of Rs. 29,774.07. But that is ,
a matter between the appellants in these appeals and those two
c persons Inder Singh and Bhagwati Prasad. · It cannot bind the first
respondent Sewa Ram: Therefore, the request 'or Mr. Gujaral cannot
be complied with. - '.
The appeals fail for the reasons ·mentioned above and are ·
dismissed witli the first responde.nt's costs. Advocate fee one set.
0
.'
H.S.K . Appeals dismissed. ·

,
. .

/