TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1983 (5) TMI 24
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....his death as he was the owner of the land on the date of the death? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the compensation was not includible in the estate of the deceased ?" In order to decide the aforesaid questions, it is necessary to notice certain salient features : One Bhagat Ram Bahri died on 12th January, 1972. The deceased was the owner of agricultural land measuring 22 kanals 2 marla situate at Jullundur, which was acquired by the Collector, Jullundur, on 8th January, 1974. Shrimati Kamla Wati, after the death of Bhagat Ram Bahri, filed the accounts of his estate as an accountable person. In the return the value of the acquired land was shown at Rs. 8....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nnot tantamount to making acquisition, which means deprivation of ownership and possession. He also drew our attention to the purports of the award dated January 8, 1974, which are as follows : 'The land shall vest absolutely in favour of the Provincial Government (Transport Department) free from all encumberance from today.' From the aforesaid purports of the award, the counsel for the accountable person wants to establish that the acquisition became complete on January 8, 1974, by means of the award and before that there was no acquisition and the deceased continued to be the owner of the agricultural land until his death and, thereafter, the title to the land was vested in his heirs. On the other hand, the revenue representative argue....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at the property vested in the State Govt. and the owner of the land acquired the vested right to claim compensation. Moreover, the award dated January 8, 1974, does make it clear that the land shall vest absolutely in favour of the Government from the date onwards. The purports of the award themselves negative the contention of the revenue representative that the land was acquired by the State Government on March 27, 1970, when the deceased was dispossessed from the land. It clearly appears to us that the land was not acquired until the date of death and the deceased continued to be the owner thereof until his death. He may not be in possession on the date of his death, but that does not mean that his land was acquired by the State Governme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to us for our decision. It may be observed at the outset that it was conceded by Mr. 0. P. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the accountable, person that on the date of death, the deceased was the owner of the land in dispute and that he was entitled to receive compensation. It is in the light of the aforesaid concession that the answer to the two questions has to be found out. Now, if the deceased was the owner of the land on the date of his death, then he was certainly entitled to receive compensation. The question that now arises for consideration is whether the amount of compensation which was determined after the death of Bhagat Ram Bahri could be included in the estate of the deceased. In the wake of the concession made, the....