RAMESH CHAND Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed with the following relief(s). (i) That orders passed by respondents No.1 and 3 dated 29.8.1995, 3.12.1998 and 25.6.2005 annexed herewith as Annexure P -2, P -3 and P -4, respectively may very kindly be quashed and set aside and that of the learned Land Reforms Officer dated 3.11.1993. Annexure P -1 may very kindly be restored and entries of tenant in the name of respondents No.4. to 6 in the revenue records may very kindly be ordered to be deleted with further directions to quash and set aside the mutation of conferment of proprietary rights sanctioned in favour of respondents No.4 go 6 during the pendency of the proceedings in the interest of law and justice. (ii) Respondents may very kindly be directed to produce the records of the case before this Honble Court. (iii) Any other and further reliefs to which the petitioner is found fit and proper may also very kindly be granted in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents."

(2.) An application for the correction of revenue entries recording the names of respondents No.4 to 6 as tenants, was moved by petitioner -Ramesh Chand. The same was allowed vide order dated 3.11.1993 whereby it was held that the respondents were not tenants so as to fall within the definition of Section 2(17) of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). This order was assailed by the private respondents/tenants before the Collector Settlement, Kangra, under Section 14 of the Act and vide order dated 28th August, 1995 the appeal of the tenant was allowed holding that they are in possession of the land in question as tenants in accordance with as per the provisions of the Act. The petitioner preferred in petition which was registered as Appeal No.28/96 titled as Ramesh Chand Vs. Mehanga Singh and others and was dismissed on merits vide order dated 3rd December, 1998. Again a revision petition under Section 74 of the Act being Revision No. 149/99 titled as Ramesh Chand Vs. Mehanga Singh and others was filed which was also dismissed vide order dated 25th June, 2005. While dismissing both the revision petitions, the authorities have relief upon the decision rendered by this Court in Daulat Ram and ors. Vs. State of H.P. and ors. SLC 1979, 215 to hold that the land in question had automatically vested with the private respondents/tenants on the enforcement of the provisions of the Act.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the decision rendered by this Court in Daulta Rams case (supra) is not the correct law inasmuch as there is no automatic vesting of rights in tenant by virtue of provisions of Section 104 of the Act on the appointed date i.e. 3.10.1975. According to him, till such time the provisions of Section 104 of the Act are not complied with in totally, there cannot be any automatic vestment of rights upon the tenant. He has further submitted that respondents No.4 to 6 in any case do not qualify to be tenants within the definition of Section 2(17) of the Act. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents have contended that the ratio laid down in Daulat Rams case (supra) is the correct ratio and need not be disturbed.