NAND RAM Vs. RAGHUNANDAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This and the connected second appeal have been filed by the tenant against the orders of the learned District Judge, Mandi in proceedings for the acquisition by the tenant of proprietary rights under Sec. 11 of the Himachal Pradesh Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act, 1953.

(2.) The appellants in the two cases, Nand Ram and Baria, applied under Sec. 11(1) of the Himachal Pradesh Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act, 1953 for the grant of proprietary rights in land belonging to the landowner Raghunandan. The landowner invoked the benefit of Sec. 11(2) of the Act and claimed that he had no other means of livelihood and was a person suffering from a. physical disability and incapable of earning his livelihood. He alleged that he was a petition writer but on account of cataract in the eyes he was unable to work as petition writer. In 1969, when the applications were filed, he was admittedly about 70 years of age. He also asserted that he had two wives and two minor daughters living with him and that his only source of livelihood was the land in dispute and some other land yielding an amount of grain hardly sufficient for maintaining himself and his family. The Compensation Officer found that he was not entitled to the benefit of Sec. 11(2) of the Act, and allowing the applications he granted proprietary rights to the tenants on payment of compensation. The landowner appealed, and both appeals were allowed by the learned District Judge, Mandi who found that the landowner was entitled to the benefit of Sec. 11(2) of the Act. Accordingly, he set aside the order of the Compensation Officer in each case and dismissed the applications made by the individual tenants. The tenants now appeal.

(3.) It appears from the record that on the date of the applications the landowner was suffering from cataract. The question is whether at the relevant time, that is to say at the time when the applications under Sec. 11(2) of the Act were filed, it can be said that the landowner was suffering from a physical disability within the contemplation of Sec. 11(2) of the Act.