PARAS RAM AND ORS. Vs. BHURU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by Paras Ram and others, landowners against the order, dated 8th January, 1969, passed by the District Judge, modifying the order of the Compensation Officer on an appeal filed by Bhuru tenant -applicant.

(2.) Bhuru made an application under Sec. 11 of the H.P. Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act (hereinafter called the Act) for acquisition of proprietary rights in respect of the land covered by Khasra Nos. 70, 73, 77 and 85 measuring 24 bighas 5 biswas, situate in village Dhuk, Tehsil Ghumarwin of District Bilaspur. Paras Ram, Hari Krishan, Kalawati, Jaidcvi, Kamla and Satya, residents of that village, were the owners of this land. The landowners opposed the application on a number of grounds and the learned Compensation Officer found that the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties. It was further held that Paras Ram, one of the landowners, who had sought the protection of Sec. 11(2) of the Act on account of his being an aged person was not entitled to invoke the aid of the same. It was, however, held that Smt. Kalawati and Jaidevi, the widows, who were wholly dependent upon this land were entitled to protection and their shares could not be acquired during their life -time. The Compensation Officer, therefore, made the following order allowing the application:

(3.) On appeal to the District Judge by Bhuru, against the order of the Compensation Officer that during the life -time of Jai Devi and Kalawati, the applicant will pay rent to the Respondents, it was held that the order was quite correct. However, the learned District Judge on the contention of the Respondents' learned Counsel held that the finding of the Compensation Officer on issue No. 5 was wrong and that Shri Paras Ram, who was aged 80 or 90 years and had weak eye -sight and had no other means of livelihood was also entitled to protection under Sub -section (2) of Sec. 11 and, therefore, he modified the order of the Compensation Officer to this extent and decided the appeal accordingly. In other words he dismissed the application of the tenant qua the share of Paras Ram and confirmed the order of the Compensation Officer in other respects. It may be stated here that there were no cross -objections nor any appeal filed by Paras Ram, but the learned District Judge merely on the argument raised by the learned Counsel for the Respondents modified this appeal qua the share of Paras Ram.