BHURI SINGH Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER Bhuri Singh claims that his grand father Gajan Singh had gifted some land in his favour vide Gift Deed 15th dated November, 1961. The petitioner at the relevant time was a minor. After the death of Gajan Singh his property was mutated in favour of his widow, sons and daughters on 10th February, 1969. One Litru was recorded as tenant over the suit land. Therefore, Bhuri Singh filed a suit for declaration that he was owner in possession of the suit land, on the basis of the gift deed. Litru contested the suit 15th on the ground that the gift deed dated November, 1961 had been executed by Gajan Singh in favour of Bhuri Singh to defeat his claim to acquire proprietary rights under the Himachal Pradesh Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act, 1953. The trial court dismissed the suit on 31st January, 1981.

(2.) AGGRIEVED by the decision in the suit, Bhuri Singh filed an appeal, being Civil Appeal No.172 of 1981, which was allowed by the learned Additional District Judge, Mandi & Shimla Divisions, Camp at Bilaspur (HP), vide its judgment dated 12th August, 1981, and the appellant Bhuri Singh was declared to be owner of the suit land on the basis of the gift deed dated 15th November, 1961 and mutation sanctioned in favour of legal heirs of Gajan Singh was held to be illegal, null and void. Litru was held to be non-occupancy tenant of the suit land under the appellant Bhuri Singh.

(3.) THEREAFTER , Bhuri Singh filed an application for resumption of land, under sub Rule (1) of Rule 21 of the H P Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, on the ground that he is a landless person and has no means of livelihood. This application was contested by Litru on various grounds, including the ground that the same was time barred. The Land Reforms Officer came to the conclusion that the application has not been filed within one month of the coming into force of the Rules and, therefore, the same is time barred. Bhuri Singh challenged this order in the hierarchy of Revenue Officers up to the level of the Financial Commissioner and all the officers held that the application for resumption was time barred. Hence, the present writ petition.