DEOTA Vs. PHAGU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question in this appeal is whether this court can suo motu exerciset powers of superintendence and control without having been moved by a specific petition under article 227 of the Constitution.

(2.) Khasra No 451 measuring 5 bighas and 12 biswas of village Kumar said was admittedly cultivated by respondent Phagnu holding under the appellant deity. It is said that Phagnu relinquished his rights as a tenant about 12 or 14 years ago and since then is tilling this land as an employee of the deity. If the land was under the personal cultivation of the deity, then it did not vest in the State in view of subsection (2) of section 27 of the Himachal Pradesh Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act, 1953 (hereafter called the Act). Nevertheless, the Compensation Officer purpoted to proceed under Section 27 of the Act and actually ordered on 28th December, 1967 that the ownership rights be granted in favour of the deity against payment of Rs. 168.24. The grantee was told to deposit the amount of Compensation within a period of two months.

(3.) Section 85 of the Act invalidates any contract or agreement made between the land owner and any other person including the tenant on or after the 1st of April, 1952, which has the effect of directly or indirectly preventing the vesting of any lard of the land owner in the State Government or to defeat any other provisions of Chapter VIII of the Act. Even according to the case of the deity, the so-called relinquishment had taken place only 12 to 14 years prior to December, 1967. It is clear, therefore, that it had taken place after the 1st of April, 1952. Its direct effect was to take the land out of the provisions of subsection (1) of Section 27 of the Act and to center the protection of Subsection (2) of Section 27 on the deity. It was, therefore, directly hit by the provisions of section 85. The relinquishmentt was, therefore, void, even if it had actually taken place.