BACHNA RAM (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES AND OTHERS Vs. LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The landowners/appellants herein are aggrieved by the verdict recorded by the learned District Judge, Solan, H.P. in Land Reference Petition No.2-S/4 of 2007, whereby, he dismissed their petition preferred under Section 18/30 of the Land Acquisition Act, on ground of his not possessing jurisdiction, to decide the question of conferment of proprietary rights upon respondents No.3 to 7 by the Revenue Officer concerned, exercising powers under the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act. Also, the learned Reference Court, remanded the petition aforesaid, to the Land Acquisition Collector, with a direction that after the Civil Court concerned, decides the fact of conferment of proprietary rights upon the respondents concerned, in respect to the land(s) brought to acquisition, thereafter, his making a reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, with respect to the apportionment of compensation inter se the landlords vis-a-vis the tenant(s).

(2.) The reason, which prevailed upon the learned Reference Court, to make the aforesaid pronouncement, ensued, from its depending upon the pronouncement of this Court titled as Chuniya Devi versus Jindu Ram, 1991 1 ShimLC 223 wherein, this Court has barred Civil Courts, to test the legality of decision(s) recorded by a Revenue Officer/ Land Reforms Officer(s) concerned, exercising powers under the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, whereby, he proceeds to make an order, conferring proprietary rights upon a "gair maurusi". The reason aforesaid, as projected by the learned Reference Court, to omit to answer the Reference Petition, palpably arises from a gross misappreciation of the import of the aforesaid decision, in decision whereof, though, a Civil Court is barred to contest the legality of an adjudication made by the Land Reforms Officer concerned, exercising powers under the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, whereby, he confers proprietary rights upon a "gair maurusi", yet in the instant case, no order has been made by the Land Reforms Officer concerned, whereby, he has conferred proprietary rights upon respondents No.3 to 7, with respect to the land(s) brought to acquisition, contrarily, compensation amount has been assessed upon respondents No.3 to 7, on the ground of theirs holding the status of tenants under the landowners, with respect to the land(s) brought to acquisition, factum whereof, of the aforesaid status, of the respondents concerned, is contested by the landowners. The aforesaid contest was reared by the landowners, by theirs making an application before the Land Acquisition Collector, application whereof stands constituted under the provisions of Sections 18/30, of the Land Acquisition Act. The aforesaid application, preferred by the landlords, before the Land Acquisition Collector, was transmitted by the latter, to the learned Reference Court. The respondents/tenants, furnished a reply to the petition, received by the learned Reference Court, from the Land Acquisition Collector. On the contentious pleadings of the parties, the learned Reference Court proceeded to strike the following issues:-

(3.) Also evidence thereon stood adduced before it. However, as aforestated, the learned Reference Court, did not either appraise the evidence in respect thereto adduced before it nor answered either of the aforesaid issues. The reason which prevailed upon it, for not answering the aforesaid issues, stood anchored upon the aforesaid decision of this Court rendered in Chuniya Devi's case supra. Consequently, this Court is enjoined to test whether the applicability of the decision recorded by this Court in Chuniya Devi's case supra, by the learned Reference Court, with respect to the facts at hand, being appropriate or not. In making, the aforesaid answer, an allusion to the ratio decidendi propounded, in the aforesaid judgment of this Court, is imperative. The ratio decidendi held in Chuniya Devi's caseis extracted hereinafter:-