GHUNKU ETC. Vs. SIDHU ETC.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a tenants' second appeal under Sec. 104 of the Himachal Pradesh Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act arising out of proceedings under Sec. 11 of that Act.

(2.) The Appellants applied under Sec. 11(1) of the Act for the acquisition of proprietary rights in the land in dispute. The Respondents landowners resisted the application on a number of grounds which included inter alia, that two of them were minors and had no other means of livelihood and were therefore entitled to the benefit of Sec. 11(2) of the Act. The application was allowed by the Compensation Officer, who made an order granting proprietary rights in favour of the tenants on payment of compensation. An appeal was preferred by the landowners before the learned District Judge. The appeal was pressed by the minor landowners only, and the learned District Judge took the view that they could not be said to have any other means of livelihood. The consideration that their father Sidhu was obliged to maintain them was a circumstance in his opinion, which could not be taken into consideration. Besides, he has pointed out, the father suffered from fits of insanity and it could not be predicated how long he could serve as support for maintaining the minors. I have heard learned Counsel for the Appellants but in my opinion there is no force in this appeal. The mere consideration that the minor landowners are entitled to maintenance from their father is not sufficient for barring them from the benefit of Sec. 11(2) of the Act. It cannot be said that such maintenance can properly fall within the expression "other means of livelihood" mentioned in Sec. 11(2) of the Act. It was laid down by the Himachal Bench of the Delhi High Court in Shri Vijay Kumar v/s. Shri Prem Singh, 1971 SLJ. 12, that the obligation of a Hindu father to maintain his minor child cannot be taken into account and treated as falling within the expression "other means of livelihood" of a minor landowner for the purposes of Sec. 11(2) of the Act. Besides, there is also the circumstance that the father suffers from fits of insanity and cannot be relied upon as a support for the minor sons.

(3.) The appeal fails and is dismissed, but in the circumstances there is no order as to costs.