PRITHVI CHAND Vs. CHHAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is preferred by the appellants against the decree and judgment passed by the lower appellate court on March 19, 1971 affirming the decree and judgment passed by the trial court.

(2.) Relevant facts to decide this appeal may briefly be stated. S/Shri Zalam and Narain Singh were the owners of the land in dispute measuring 23 Bighas 11 Biswas. The Himachal Pradesh Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the ˜Abolition Act) came into force with effect from January 26, 1955. Under section 27 of the Abolition Act, this land vested in the State Government free from all encumbrances and by an order dated May 19, 1966, the Compensation Officer transferred the rights, title and interest of the land owner in the land in dispute to the respondent under sub -section (4) of section 27 of the said Act on the ground that the respondent was a cultivating tenant of the land in dispute The order of the Compensation Officer wa3 challenged by the appellants in a Civil Court and they prayed for setting aside the said order. It was contended on behalf of the appellants that the respondent was a sub -tenant in a part of the land measuring only 4 Bighas 6 Biswas comprised in Khasra No. 280, 315, 508 and 517. ii was further contended that the Compensation Officer failed to serve them with a notice and, therefore, they could not claim the ownership rights in the land in dispute, as non occupancy tenants The ultimate prayer of the appellants was that the order of the Compensation Officer be declared as illegal and that they be held entitled to get the ownership rights in the land in dispute on payment of compensation. The trial court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff and on appeal the lower appellate court affirmed the decree and judgment passed by the trial court.

(3.) It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the appellants that in the relevant revenue record the respondent is entered as a sub -tenant in respect of the entire land in suit. It is, however, contended by the learned counsel that the respondent was a sub -tenant on a portion of land measuring only 4 Bighas 6 Biswas According to the learned counsel the rest of the land was cultivated as sub -tenants by S/Shri Ghamia and Surma, S/Shri Ghamia and Surma were not even impleaded as parties to the suit. They have also not come forward with a claim that all rights, title and interest in the land be conferred on them by virtue of sub -section (4) of section 27 of the Abolition Act.