MUNSHI RAM Vs. RANJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) entitled to resume the land applied for in its entirety. It is against this order of the learned Commissioner, Kangra Division dated 17.10.1994 that the present revision petition has been filed before this court. The record of the courts below has been called for and examined.

(2.) Both the parties have filed written arguments in the matter. On behalf of Shri Munshi Ram it is stated that the Land Reforms Officer, Kangra after scrutinizing the revenue record found the respondent Shri Ranjeet Singh as being in the possession of land measuring 3 -27 -79 hectare while he was not entitled to resume the land more than the prescribed limit i.e. upto 5 acres from the petitioner including the land in his personal cultivation. It has also been mentioned that LR (V) filed by the respondent was hopelessly time barred as the respondent had filed I.R. (V) Form No. 3788 on 15.5.1976. The general category was applicable to Shri Ranjeet Singh and not that of being a member of the armed forces. As such he should have filed for resumption of this land under tenancy before 31.12.1975 also Shri Ranjeet Singh had not filed the application for resumption under the provisions of Section 34 (d) (d) of H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972, as such, he as not entitled to eject the petitioner from the entire tenancy land. It has been contended in the written arguments that Divisional Commissioner, Kangra had wrongly ordered the petitioner to be ejected from the entire tenancy land without considering the merits of the case and the law cited in the order dated 17.10.1994 was not applicable in this case. It has been stressed that under the provision of Section 104 -Sub -Sections (8 & 9) of HP. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 the respondent was only entitled to resume land to make up his holding to the prescribed limit upto 5 acres including the land under his personal cultivation and besides, he could not resume land more than half of the tenancy. 3.In written arguments on behalf of the respondent, it has been argued that the provisions applicable to Shri Ranjeet Singh are those of Sub Section 8 & 9 of Section 104 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 which also cover clauses (d) & (dd) of Sub -Section (1) of Section 34. Under Sub -Section 8 and 9 there is no restriction of 50% on the land resemble from the tenancy. The provision of Sub Sections 1 to 6 of Section 104 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 do not apply to a serving member of armed forces. The Ld. Divisional Commissioner in his order dated 17.10.1994 has gone into the matter in detail after considering various aspects of the matter, the intention of the legislation, the protection afforded to serving members of the armed forces and come to the conclusion that Shri Ranjeet Singh was entitled to resume the entire tenancy holding from the tenant petitioner. No separate application is required to be filed under Section 34(1) (d) and (dd). Form LR -(V) was filed timely by Shri Ranjeet Singh and the applicability of the law to the category of servicemen has to be taken into account and therefore the revision petition is devoid of merits.

(3.) Perusal of the record shows that a very learned exposition of the provision of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act on the aspect of resumption of lands under tenancy has been recorded by the Ld. Divisional Commissioner, Dharamsala, while deciding. Appeal No.81/90 on 17.10.1994. In this order he has dealt with the material facts on record and concluded that Shri Ranjeet Singh was entitled to the benefit of Section 104, Sub Section 8 & 9 being a serving member of the armed forces who had filed the application for resumption of his land that was under tenancy of Shri Munshi Ram and Shri Nand Lal . The Ld. Divisional Commissioner has also discussed the applicability of Clause (d) & (dd) of Sub Section 1 of Section 34 together with the proviso appended thereto. He has concluded that in the case of a land owner, to whom Sub Section 8 & 9 of Section 104 of the Act is applicable, is not restricted in the quantum of land that can be resumed from the tenant. The Ld. Divisional Commissioner has also concluded that the revenue officers below misinterpreted the law in rejecting Shri Ranjeet Singhs application for resumption of land on the plea that he already had more than 5 acres of land under his self cultivation. In view of the provision of Section 34, Sub Section 1 (d) & (dd) this ceiling is irrelevant to the case Shri Ranjeet Singh. The area of the land with tenant in this case was less than 5 acres and the land owner, who was a serving member of the armed forces, was entitled to resume the same is toto.