MOHAN LAL Vs. MOHUN RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal, by special leave, concerns a piece of land, measuring 27 bighas and 17 biswas, situate in village Chethla, District Mahasu in Himachal Pradesh. The land stood in the names of one Kabja and Subda, the minor daughters of Smt. Radhu, as the owners thereof. It can no longer be disputed that Radhu, as the guardian of her minor daughters, had leased the land to the respondent for a term of five years. The period of the lease expired in Rabi 1960. The said Subda died; in the result Kubja became the sole owner of the said land. On December 6, 1960. Radhu, as the guardian of the minor Kubja, sold the said land to the appellant for Rs. 4000. In March 1961 the respondent, claiming to be still the tenant, applied for the proprietary rights of the landholders in the said land under Section 11 (1) of the Himachal Pradesh Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act, XV of 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

(2.) The application of the respondent was resisted by both Kubja and the appellant on the ground that the respondent was never the tenant of the said land but had taken forcible possession thereof, that he had thereafter relinquished its possession in a Panchayat and further that as the appellant was a minor, having no other means of livelihood except the said land, he was entitled to the protection of sub-section (2) of Section 11.

(3.) The compensation officer under the Act dismissed the respondent's application holding that Radhu, as the guardian of her minor daughters, had leased the said land to the respondent for a period of five years, but that the lease expired in 1960 and thereupon the respondent had relinquished possession. Consequently, he was in March 1961 no longer a tenant who could apply under Section 11 (1). He also held that the appellant was a minor without any other means of livelihood except the land in question, and therefore, was in any event entitled to the protection provided under Section 11 (2). The District Judge, in the appeal filed by the respondent, held that the respondent had not relinquished possession nor had he ceased to be the tenant of the land in spite of the expiry of the lease period. He also held that the trees and the buildings standing on the said land would not be covered under the proceedings under Section 11 (1), the first because they did not constitute land under the Act, and the second because the tenant did not wish to include the buildings in his said application. The District Judge, however, omitted to decide the question as to whether the respondent was a minor without any other means of livelihood, and therefore, entitled to the protection under Section 11 (2). He, nevertheless, set aside the order of the compensation officer and allowed the appeal awarding proprietary rights in the land to the respondent save in respect of the trees and the buildings. The appellant filed a second appeal before the learned Judicial Commissioner who remanded the case to the District Judge directing him to give his finding on the question left undecided by him, namely, the question as to the applicability of Section 11 (2). On such remand the District Judge gave his finding to the effect that except for the land in question the appellant -minor had no other means of livelihood, and therefore, during his minority the respondent-tenant was not entitled to acquire the proprietary rights in the said land. He also got a plan prepared of the buildings and the lands appertaining thereto which would be excluded from the purview of the application.