BHAJAN SINGH ALIAS CHHAN ETC. Vs. SMT. CHAMELI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a second appeal preferred by Bhajan Singh under Sec. 104 of the Himachal Pradesh Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act, 1953 (hereinafter to be referred as the Abolition Act of 1953) against Shrimati Chameli who is the legal representative of the former Respondent Janta, and is directed against the decision dated 13th October, 1969 of the District Judge, Kangra.

(2.) Janta being occupancy tenant of land filed in the year 1964 an application under Sec. 11 of the Abolition Act, 1953 before the Compensation Officer for acquisition of proprietary rights over such land. A compromise was effected between Bhajan Singh and Gurmukh Singh landlords on one side and Janta their tenant on the other side and the application was withdrawn by Janta under a promise by landlords to meet expenses of maintenance of Janta who started residing with them. It was later on stated by Janta that a breach of compromise was committed by the two landlords. Accordingly he filed a fresh application for grant of proprietary rights under Sec. 11 of the Abolition Act, 1953 before the Compensation, Officer. This application is the subject -matter of the present dispute. The learned Compensation Officer found that the previous decision of 1964 whereby the application of Janta was rejected was res judicata and that in view of the compromise, the present application was not sustainable. Accordingly the learned Compensation Officer dismissed the application of Janta.

(3.) Janta came in appeal before the learned District Judge, Kangra. It was found in first appeal, that Sec. 11 of the Civil Procedure Code was not applicable and that the compromise effected in 1964 was a contract which was in violation of a statute and hence not enforceable between the parties. It was, therefore, held that Janta was entitled to acquire proprietary rights, but the difficulty before the learned District Judge was that no finding was given by the Compensation Officer regarding the quantum of compensation and regarding the price of a house which existed over the land and for which some provision was required to be made. If the landlords were to acquire this house, they had to pay its price and in case they do not want to acquire, some land has to be left out for passage up to the house so that the legal representative of Janta can utilize the house.