DURGA DAS versus THE COLLECTOR AND ORS.

DURGA DAS versus THE COLLECTOR AND ORS.

Since appellant only purchased a specified share from one co-owner (Kewal Krishan) and no lease deed was executed for the other lands, he cannot be considered a tenant entitled to compensation for those lands. Mutation entries alone do not confer tenancy or title rights.

Parties
Appellant: Durga Das; Respondents: The Collector and Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
07 August 1996
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From Himachal Pradesh High Court Judgment Dated 4.5.1984 in R.f.a. No. 24 of 1984
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Land Acquisition, Tenancy Rights, Title by Mutation, Compensation for Acquired Land
Land Law Compensation Law Land Acquisition Tenancy Rights Title by Mutation Compensation for Acquired Land

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Durga Das

Appellant

The Collector and Ors.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From Himachal Pradesh High Court Judgment Dated 4.5.1984 in R.f.a. No. 24 of 1984

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant is a tenant in occupation and entitled to compensation as tenant for the acquired land

Ratio Decidendi

Since appellant only purchased a specified share from one co-owner (Kewal Krishan) and no lease deed was executed for the other lands, he cannot be considered a tenant entitled to compensation for those lands. Mutation entries alone do not confer tenancy or title rights.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The Court below is directed to pay over the amount to Vijay Kumar.
  • If the amount is withdrawn by the appellant, bank guarantee should be encashed and balance paid to the appellant.