MOHAN SINGH Vs. JASWANT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners Mohan Singh and others have preferred a revision petition against the order, dated 19 -1 -1983 of the Divisional Commissioner, Kangra Division. By virtue of the impugned order, the learned Divisional Commissioner dismissed the second appeal preferred to him against the order, dated 7 -1 -1979 of the Collector, Chachiot -Sadar Sub -Division. It was held by him that the respondents were the occupancy tenants and thus acquired the proprietaty rights in respect of the land held by them in their tenancy, in terms of section 94 of the H. P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act from the date of commencement of the Act. Moreover, as they had become the land owners, they were entitled to resume the land, which was held by non -occupancy tenants,

(2.) Briefly, the facts of the case are that the Land Reforms Officer, Sader Mandi, vide his order, dated 3 -2 -1977 accepted the application of the present respondents for resumption of i - of the tenancy land on the ground that being the occupancy tenants of the land, in question, they had acquired the proprietary rights under Chapter 9 of the Act and having become the owners of the land, were entitled to all the benefits which accrued under Chapter 10 of the Act. He thus over -ruled the preliminary objections of the present petitioners and directed them to file at the time and copies of the Jamabandi of the tenancy land, they wanted to relinquish, in favour of the land owners. Aggrieved by this order of the Land Reforms Officer, the present petitioners filed an appeal before the Sub -Divisional Collector, Mandi Sadar, who dismissed the same. The second appeal preferred before the Divisional Commissioner met with the same fate.

(3.) I have heard the learned Counsels for the/petitioners as well as the respondents and perused the court record, The provisions of the relevant section 94 of the H. P. Tenancy and land Reforms Act are quite clear, and according to section 94. proprietary rights vested in the occupancy tenants from the date the Act came into force and at the same time, the corresponding rights of the land owners were extinguished. As far as the legal" position is concerned, the contention of the petitioner has no substance and is not tenable. The interpretation of the provisions of section 9 Us that occupancy tenants acquired the proprietary rights as soon as the Act" came into force and on the basis of this interpretation, the lend Reforms Officer was right in over -ruling the preliminary objections of the present petitioners. However, what is required to be determined by the Land Reforms Officer is the entitlement of the land owners to resume the land keeping in view their present land holdings. The Land Reforms Officer will also verity whether the application for resumption of land was made in accordance with the H. P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Rules Since the order on the application for resumption of land is yet to be passed, the parties are directed to appear before the Land Reforms Officer so as to enable him to dispose of the application expeditiously. The revision petition which is without any force or substance, is dismissed. The order may be communicated to the parties. Revision dismissed.