RAJKUMAR RAJINDER SINGH Vs. LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of Civil Writ Petition No. 15 of 1962 and Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 2, a, 4, 8 and 16 of 1963. The important question of law, involved in these civil writ petitions, relates to the Interpretation of Section 27 of the Himachal Pradesh Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act, (hereinafter referred to as the Abolition Act). That section reads as under:--

(2.) The question, about the interpretation of Section 27, in the writ petitions, has arisen in the following circumstances:-

(3.) The joint Secretary (Revenue), Himachal Pradesh, had issued instructions, to the Collectors of the Districts, asking them to direct, the revenue staff, working under them, to enter and sanction mutations of transfer of ownership, in favour of the state Government, of lands, owned by landowners who paid annual land- revenue exceeding Rs. 125/-. The instructions, explained that, according to tne provisions of Section 27 of the Abolition Act, the right, title and interest of such landowners, in the lands, excepting lands, under their personal cultivation, stood transferred to, and vested in, the State Government, from the date of the enforcement of the Abolition Act, namely, 26th January, 1955. In pursuance of the above instructions, the ownership of the lands held By the petitioners, was transferred to and mutations of transfer of ownership, effected, In favour of the State Government. The petitioners filed the present writ petitions, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, questioning the validity of the mutations, transferring the ownership of their lands, in favour of the State Government. The main plea of the petitioners is that a landowner's rights in land can vest in the state Government, under Section 27(1) of the Abolition Act only, after compensation payable to the landowner, for those rights, has been determined and paid and that, as in the present cases, the mutations of transfer of ownership rights were sanctioned, without even determination of compensation, they were without any basis, without jurisdiction and illegal. The petitioners have raised other pleas also; but it is not necessary to set out those pleas and to give a decision thereon, as in my opinion, the petitioners are entitled to succeed on the basis of their main plea and the mutations of transfer of ownership rights are liable to be quashed on that plea, alone.