SMT. DEV LATA Vs. ALAM ETC.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A short question arises in this and the connected appeal. Does the expression "such tenant who cultivates such land" in Sec. 27(4) of the Himachal Pradesh Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act, 1953, include a sub -tenant in actual cultivation?

(2.) One Rana Vidya Bhushan was the landowner of land, the annual land revenue of which exceeded Rs. 125/ -. On January 26, 1955, when the aforesaid Act came into force his right, title and interest in such land as was not under his personal cultivation vested in the State Government by virtue of Sec. 27(1) of the Act. Proceedings were commenced under Sec. 27(4) of the Act for the transfer of the right, title and interest so acquired. The tenant of the land at that time was Smt. Dev Lata and the sub -tenant was Alam, who was in actual cultivator possession of the land. After an initial round of proceedings which resulted in a remand of the case by the learned District Judge, the Compensation Officer held that Smt. Dev Lata although a tenant, was not in possession of the land, and as regards Alam although he was in cultivator possession he was merely a sub -tenant. Holding that neither satisfied the condition mentioned in Sec. 27(4) of the Act, he declined to make an order granting proprietary rights in the land in favour of either Smt. Dev Lata or Alam. Two appeals were filed before the learned District Judge, one by each of them, against the order of the Compensation Officer. On June 17, 1971, learned District Judge made an order dismissing the appeal by Smt. Dev Lata and allowing the appeal by Alam. The learned District Judge held that a sub -tenant was included within the expression "tenant" and as Alam was cultivating the land he was entitled to the benefit of Sec. 27(4) of the Act. This has given rise to the present appeals.

(3.) Chapter III of the Act, in which Sec. 27 occurs, deals with the acquisition of proprietary rights by tenants. Sec. 11 entitles a tenant, on application made by him to the Compensation Officer, to acquire on payment of compensation the right, title and interest of the landowner in the tenancy land held by him under the landowner. Certain enumerated exceptions have been provided turning on the status or disability of a landowner, but they are not relevant here. The second class of cases where a tenant acquires the right, title and interest of the landowner comprises those cases where a tenant holds tenancy land exceeding 12 acres in area and on application to the Compensation Officer surrenders to the landowner a specified portion of the area and on demarcation and delivery of possession of the surrendered portion to the landowner the tenant becomes the owner in respect of the rest of the tenancy land. The third class of cases is that provided for by Sec. 27. Sec. 27 reads: