PREM CHAND Vs. KRISHAN KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A single order will suffice to dispose of three revision petition Nos. 269/89, 270/89 and 273/89, which have been filed under section 114 of the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 (hereinafter called the Act) against the order dated 9 -8 -1989 of the Commissioner, Mandi Division, vide which he disposed of a number of appeals including the appeals of the present petitioners. All these cases pertain to resumption of land under section 104 of the Act and were decided by the Land Reforms Officer, Hamirpur by more or less identical order separately passed in each file on 10 -2 -1986. These orders were challenged before the learned Sub -Divisional Collector, Hamirpur, who heard them together and decided by a single order passed on 30 -5 -1988. Feeling aggrieved by the orders of the learned Sub -Divisional Collector, revisions were filed before the learned Commissioner, Mandi Division, who treated them as second appeals and decided by a single order passed on 9*8 -1989. Since the question of law and facts involved in these cases are the same, we also heard them together and propose to dispose of them by a single order.

(2.) We heard the arguments adduced by Shri G. D. Singh, Advocate, learned Counsel for the petitioners and also Shri Krishan Kumar respondent No. 1, who appeared in person. The main grounds on which the petitioners have challenged the order of the Commissioner, Mandi Division, are that the persons of Armed Forces as defined under clause (12) of section 2 of the Act, all the members of the Armed Forces including the persons of organisation kept for the security of the country as well as organisations kept by the State Governments are to be notified for the purpose of declaring them beneficial for resumption of land as provided under section 104 of the Act. The petitioners have stated that there is no such notification declaring any person to be beneficiary as defined under section 2 (12) of the Act and as such, the case of the respondent No* 1 was never covered for the purpose of resumption under section 104 of the Act. For arriving at a conclusion we have to go through the provisions of section 104 (8) of the Act, which are reproduced below I - "Save as otherwise provided in sub -section (9), nothing contained in sub -section (1) to (6) shall apply to a tenancy of a landowner during the period mentioned for each category of such landowners in sub -section (9) who, - (a) is a minor or unmarried woman, or if married, divorced or separated from husband or widow ; or (b) is permanently incapable of cultivating land by reason of any physical or mental infirmity ; or (c) is a serving member of the Armed Forces ; or (d) is the father of the person who is serving in the Armed Forces upto the extent of inheritable share of such a member of the Armed Forces on the date of his joining the Armed Forces, to be declared by his father in the prescribed manner". Even plain reading of section 104 of the Act makes it clear that nothing contained in sub -sections (1) to (6) shall apply to a tenancy of a landowner, who is serving member of the Armed Forces. Rule 21 (2) (iii) of the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Rules. 1972 (hereinafter called the Rules) lays down that members of Armed Forces can apply for resumption of land within three years from the date on which they cease to be the members of the Armed Forces The learned Commissioner in his order has relied upon the letter dated 13 -7 -1983 from Captain Raghbir Singh, which is available on the file of the Land Reforms Officer, and states that Shri Krishan Kumar had been transferred to pension w e. f 30 -4 -1983. Another letter, which is also available on the same file, is from the Commanding Officer, 107 Engineers Regiment, which states that Shri Krishan Kumar had been struck off from the strength of the Regiment from 25 -1 -1983. The application for resumption in LR -V form was submitted within the prescribed period. There is no doubt that Shri Krishan Kumar was in service in the Engineers Regiment, which is an integral part of the Armed Forces of the Union of India and he was entitled to resume the land to the extent prescribed under section 104 of the Act and the Rules made thereunder. We fully agree with the conclusions arrived at by the learned Commissioner and find no reason to differ with the same.

(3.) In view of the position stated above, we find no force in the revision petitions filed by the present petitioners and accordingly, proceed to dismiss all of them Original order be placed on file pertaining to Revision Petition No. 269/89 and copies thereof on the remaining case files. To be communicated. Revision dismissed.