DAYA RAM Vs. RESHMU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against an order of the learned District Judge, Bilaspur, whereby an appeal, against the order of Compensation Officer. Bilaspur, was allowed.

(2.) Daya Ram appellant was proprietor of land, measuring 10 Bighas and 12 Bis was, comprised in Khasra Nos. 12 Min, 17, 19, 21 and 78, situated in village Mohur. Lala, husband of Shrimati Reshmu respondent, had applied, under Section 11 of the Himachal Pradesh Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as the Abolition Act) for acquisition of proprietary rights in the land on the allegation that he was a tenant of the land. Daya Ram appellant had opposed the application and had filed objections against the acquisition of proprietary rights by Lala. Daya Ram had denied that Lala was a tenant of the land. This plea was that by virtue of a compromise entered into between Lala and himself, on the 28th November. 1952, Shrimati Reshmu had become the tenant of the land. After the filing of the objections by Daya Ram appellant, Shrimati Reshmu made an application, under Order 1, Rule 10 C P. C. for impleading her as a co-applicanl with Lala. Shrimati Reshmu had alleged, in the application, that she was a tenant of the land, in dispute, and was entitled to acquire proprietary rights in it. The application was opposed by Daya Ram appellant. The Compensation Officer allowed the application and impleaded Shrimati Reshmu as a co-applicant with Lala. But he rejected the application for acquisition of proprietary rights on the ground that the entries in the revenue records did not support the claim of Shrimati Reshmu.

(3.) Aggrieved by the order of the Compensation Officer. Lala and Shrimali Reshmu had gone up in appeal to the learned District Judge. It was contended, on their behalf, that the Compensation Officer was in error in dismissing their application for the acquisition of proprietary rights On behalf of Daya Ram appellant, it was urged before the learned District Judge, that the provisions of Order 1, Rule 10 C.P.C., were not applicable to proceedings, before the Compensation Officer and that he erred in impleading Shrimati Reshmu respondent as a co-applicant with Lala. It was, further urged, on behalf of Daya Rain appellant, that even if it be proved that Shrimati Reshmu was a tenant of the land, she could not have been granted proprietary rights as she had not tiled any application under Section 11 of the Abolition Act. on the prescribed form. The learned District Judge accepted the contention, put forth, on behalf of Daya Ram appellant, that the provisions of Order 1, Rule 10 C.P.C., were not applicable to proceedings before the Compensation Officer and that Shrimati Reshmu could not be impleaded as a coapplicant with Lala But he treated the application, filed under Order 1, Rule 10 C. P. C., by Shrimati Reshmu as an application, under Section 11 of the Abolition Act, holding that the provisions laying down that the application for acquisition of proprietary rights should be in the prescribed form were only directory and not mandatory The learned District Judge, further, held that it was proved on the record that Shrimati Reshmu was tenant of the land in dispute and was, therefore, entitled to acquire proprietary rights. He allowed the appeal, so far as Shrimati Reshmu was concerned, and granted her proprietary rights in the land, in dispute. He directed the Compensation Officer to determine the compensation, payable to Daya Ram appellant, the proprietor, and issue the necessary certificate of ownership in favour of Shrimati Reshmu.