LAWS(HPH)-1983-9-2

TOTA Vs. PYARE LAL

Decided On September 22, 1983
TOTA Appellant
V/S
PYARE LAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment will dispose of R.S. As. Nos. 91, 95, 96 and 97 of 1982 since common questions of law and fact arise in all these appeals.

(2.) Tota, Ram pass, Dandoo, and Motha, all Harijans, were tenants of different parcels of agricultural land which was shown in the revenue record owned by Shrimati Parmeshroo, widow of Paras Ram, Jagat Ram, Hira Lal, Pyare Lal, Mst, Daropati, Yidya, and Mst. Godawari, sons and daughters of Paras Ram, The tenants madia applications on various dates in 1962 and 1963 before the Compensation Officer, Bilaspur, under Sections 11 and 14 of the Himachal Pradesh Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act, 1963 (the Act) for the grant of proprietary rights in the land. These applications were in the form laid down by Rule 3 of the Himachal Pradesh Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Rules, 1955 (the Rules), By an order dated 17th February, 1966 the Compensation Officer allowed the applications exparte. The owners appealed to the District Judge under the Section 104 of the Act However, all the appeals were dismissed as being barred by time as provided under Section ilk of the Act, Now, among the owners Ved Prakash, Vidya, Godawari, and Pyare Lal were minors. Four suits were filed by the minors against the aforementioned tenants challenging the order of the Compensation Officer. It was averred that the minors were not properly represented before the Compensation Officer and so his orders were null and void. It was also averred that there was a family arrangement/private partition among the members before applications under Section 11 were made by the tenants and as the land with the tenants fell to the shares of the minors, the tenants could not get the proprietary rights. The suits were decreed in favour of the land owners -plaintiffs and the appeals were dismissed by the Additional District Judge, The present second appeals have been filed under para 32 of the Himachal Pradesh (Courts) Order, 194b. This gives jurisdiction to this court to go into the questions of fact and redecide the cases.

(3.) In order to appreciate the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties about the legality of the orders passed by the Compensation Officer, the provisions of Section 11 of the Act may be noticed. It reads : "(1) Notwithstanding any law; custom or contract to the contrary a tenant other than a sub -tenant shall, on application made to the Compensation Officer at any time after the commencement of this Act, be entitled to acquire, on payment of compensation, the right, title and interest of the landowner in the land of the tenancy held by him under the landowner : Provided that a tenant not having a right of occupancy shall not be entitled to acquire the right, title and interest of the landowner in the land of the tenancy from which he is liable to ejectment under clause (d) or clause (f) or clause (g) of sub -section (1) of Section 54. (2) Nothing contained in sub -section (1) shall apply to a landlord, if he has no other means of livelihood and is a minor, widow or a person suffering from physical or mental disability incapable of earning his livelihood. In the case of a minor, sub -section (1) shall not apply during his minority and in other cases for his life time. (3) The application referred to in sub -section (1) shall be made in writing to the Compensation Officer who shall thereupon determine the amount of compensation payable to the landowner in respect of the land in accordance with the provisions of Sections 12 and