GIARU Vs. RAMESH CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is directed against the decision of the Additional District Judge, Bilaspur, reversing on appeal a decision of the Compensation Officer, Bilaspur, whereby he had granted the application of one Giaru conferring upon him proprietary rights in land measuring 41 bighas and 10 biswas situate in village Tayaman, Tehsil Sadar of that district. The Petitioner's father Sihanoo filed a petition under Sec. 11 of the Himachal Pradesh Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act, 1953 (hereinafter to be referred as the Abolition Act, 1953), against Ramesh Chand minor, his landowner, for the disputed land and claimed for proprietary rights in respect of such land after ascertainment and payment of compensation as prescribed under law. During the pendency of the application, Sihanoo died and in his place the present Appellant Giaru was substituted. The defence on behalf of Ramesh Chand was that Giaru was not his tenant, that the disputed land was banjar and could not be considered "land" as defined in the Abolition Act, 1953, and that at any rate the minor Ramesh Chand had no other means of livelihood and as such he could not be deprived of the disputed land. The parties went to trial on all the three grounds and the learned Compensation Officer held that Giaru was a tenant and that the disputed land was not banjar and hence was covered under the definition of "land" as provided in the Abolition Act, 1953. The learned Compensation Officer further held that the minor was supported by his grandfather and also by his parents and as such he is possessed of other means of livelihood which were sufficient. With these findings the decision was, that Giaru was entitled to claim proprietorship for the land and his application was allowed.

(2.) An appeal was filed before the Additional District Judge, Bilaspur against the decision of the learned Compensation Officer. The learned Counsel did not combat the findings of the learned Compensation Officer to the extent these findings related to Giaru being a tenant and the land being covered under the Abolition Act, 1953 for conferment of proprietary rights. However, there was a serious context on the third ground, namely, the minor landowner having possessed other means of livelihood. Upon consideration of evidence adduced by the parties, the learned Additional District Judge who decided the case held, that despite the support received by the minor from his mother, father and grandfather, he was not possessed of other means of livelihood which could be considered sufficient and the disputed land also did not accrue any income for him as Giaru was not paying rent for the last several years. Upon these findings, the appeal was allowed and the application under Sec. 11 of the Abolition Act, 1953 was dismissed.

(3.) Giaru has come up in this second appeal. The learned Counsel for the Appellant has confined his argument on the ground as to whether Ramesh Chand landowner could be stated to possess other means of livelihood so that Giaru is not disentitled to obtain proprietary rights in this land. I am thus concerned with Sub -section (2) of Sec. 11 of the Abolition Act, 1953 which need be reproduced for sake of convenience: