In Brief
The Haryana Wakf Board appealed against compensation apportionment orders that gave lessees 3/4 and the Wakf Board 1/4 of acquisition compensation. The lessees held the land under leases exceeding three years granted without Board sanction, violating the Wakf Act. The Court held such leases void and conferring no rights. Unlike cases involving statutory purchase rights or perpetual leases, void Wakf leases entitle lessees only to 5-15% compensation for re-settlement, not market-value apportionment. The Court distinguished the prior precedent (Mangat Ram) which had not considered Wakf Act restrictions. As lessees were poor and had spent the compensation, the Court exercised Article 142 powers to prevent recovery. Appeals allowed; High Court's apportionment orders set aside.", <parameter name="cited_cases">[ { "raw_citation": "Mangat Ram and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors., 1996 (2) R.R.R. 625 : (1996) 8 SCC 664", "case_name": "Mangat Ram v. State of Haryana", "cited_year": "1996", "paragraph": "4, 6, 10, 13", "treatment": "distinguished", "treatment_by": "this_court", "treatment_quote": "In Mangat Ram (supra) this Court has considered the question of disbursement of compensation...This Court was not asked to examine whether lessee of Wakf Board acquired any right, title or interest in the land or would acquire it in future. The aforesaid provisions of Wakf Act were not placed for consideration. It is settled proposition of law that a decision cannot be said to be an authority on the issue that has not been decided." }, { "raw_citation": "(1994) 4 SCC 523", "case_name": "Harinder Singh Brar Bans Bahadur v. Bihar Lal", "cited_year": "1994", "paragraph": "4, 10, 12, 13", "treatment": "distinguished", "treatment_by": "this_court", "treatment_quote": "In the cases at hand, there was no right conferred upon the tenant to become the occupancy tenant or lessee beyond three years, which could be said to have been taken away by the land acquisition. This Court has observed in Harinder Singh Brar (supra) that certain amount in respect of the purchase price would have to be paid by the tenant while exercising right, as per formulae provided Under Section 18 of the Tenancy Act, 1953." }, { "raw_citation": "(1994) 5 SCC 239", "case_name": "Inder Parshad v. Union of India", "cited_year": "1994", "paragraph": "4, 10, 11", "treatment": "distinguished", "treatment_by": "this_court", "treatment_quote": "In Mangat Ram (supra) relied upon the decision in Inder Parshad (supra) in which, we find that this Court has ordered that apportionment to be made to the extent of 67% to tenant and 33% to owner, as the lease of land was given on perpetual basis to the lessee by the Government, he was having the rights to hold the land perpetually, thus, was held entitled for aforesaid apportionment. That is not the factual situation obtainable in the instant cases. The aforesaid ratio could not be said to be applicable to Mangat Ram (supra) as no such right was available as per the provisions contained in Section 36-F of the Wakf Act, 1954." } ]
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.