KASHMIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shri Kashmir Singh and others have filed this revision petition under section 20 (2) of the H. P. Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 (hereinafter called as the Act) against the order dated 7 -3 -1988 of the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi, whereby he dismissed an appeal filed against the order dated 24 -1 -1986 of the Sub -Divisional Collector, Sarkaghat.

(2.) The facts of the case briefly stated are that the Sub -Divisional Collector, Sarkaghat vide his order dated 24 -1 -1986 denied the award of additional compensation to the petitioners in respect of the value of trees assessed at Rs. 13,09,078, standing on the land of the petitioners declared surplus, on the ground that the trees were not crop within the meaning of sub -section (4) of section 14 of the Act. The appeal of the petitioners before the learned Divisional Commissioner, Mandi, did not succeed since he relied upon the findings given by Shri P. K. Mattoo, Financial Commissioner, Himachal Pradesh, in his order dated 24 -7 -1976, passed in revision petition No. 7/76, as a result the order dated 24 -1 -1986 of the Sub -Divisional Collector, Sarkaghat was upheld by him Feeling aggrieved by the orders of Revenue Officers below, the petitioners have come in revision before us. During the pendency of the revision petition, one of the petitioners, Smt Surju Devi expired and at the request of the petitioners, her name was deleted from the array of the petitioners since her legal heirs were already on the record.

(3.) The petitioners as well as the learned District Attorney (Revenue) on behalf of the State have tendered written arguments, which have been placed on the record. . I have very carefully gone through the record of the case and written arguments furnished by the petitioners and the learned District Attorney. The petitioners have stated that the learned Divisional Commissioner based his decision on the judgment of the Financial Commissioner. Himachal Pradesh, which he took "binding on the lower Revenue Courts in Himachal Pradesh and as such he did not go deep into the matter himself. It was also stated that Shri P. K. Mattoo, Financial Commissioner, Himachal Pradesh, had based his decision on the case titled "Divisional Forest Officer, Sarahan Forest Division and mothers. Daut and others", reported in AIR 1963 SC p. 612, which was a case under the H. P Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act, 1954. The petitioners expressed the view that this ruling pertains to the tenancy land only and does not hold good in the forest land m the exclusive ownership and possession of the petitioners. The written arguments of the petitioners are very elaborate and cover those issues which are not very relevant to the issue, which is for determination before us The issue for determination before us in this case is whether the trees standing on the surplus land of the petitioners fall within the definition of crop and the entitlement of the petitioners to the compensation for the trees standing on the surplus land, which has vested in the State Government or in the alternative the petitioners are entitled to remove the trees from the surplus area. The learned District Attorney based his reliance on the order dated 24 -7 -1976 passed by our learned predecessor, Shri P. K. Mattoo, Financial Commissioner, in revision No. 7/76 titled "Raj Kumar Ashokpal Singh S/o Raja Joginder Sen v. State of Himachal Pradesh. He also cited AIR 1966 Ker 72 wherein it was held by the Kerala High Court that the trees cannot possibly be considered as a crop or other product raised on the land.