VIRINDER SINGH Vs. SMT. RESHMO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal arises out of the application filed by one Shankar Lal, the deceased husband of the Respondent Shrimati Reshmoo, for acquiring proprietary rights over the land which was held by him as tenant under Section 11(1) of the Himachal Pradesh Abolition of Big Landed Estate and Land Reforms Act, 1953 which is hereinafter referred to as "the Act". This provision of Section 11 of the Act contemplates the acquisition of right, title, and interest of the landowner by a tenant, as defined in the Act, on payment of compensation which would be determined by the Compensation Officer as per provisions of the Act. The original application was filed by Shankar Lal before the Compensation Officer against one Shrimati Madanawati, the widow of one Mohan Singh. According to Sub -Section 2 of Section 11, the right to acquire right, title and interest of the landlord cannot be availed of if the landowner has no other means of livelihood, and is a minor, widow or a person suffering from physical or mental disability and is incapable of earning his livelihood. In the case of minor, the right cannot be acquired by the tenant during his minority, and in other cases, during the life time of the widow, or the person suffering from physical or mental disability.

(2.) PENDING the petition under Section 11, Shankar Lal died leaving behind him the present Respondent Reshmoo and one Dawarkoo. Both these persons named Reshmoo and Dawarkoo claimed to be the widows of Shankar Lal and, therefore, applied to the Compensation Officer for being brought on record as Shankar Lal's legal representatives. This inter se dispute between these two persons was decided initially by the Compensation Officer who held that the Respondent Reshmoo was not the widow of deceased Shankar Lal. It appears from the record of the case that the other person named Dawarkoo did not pursue her application for being joined as legal representative. The Respondent, Reshmoo, however, appealed to the District Judge against the order of the Compensation Officer requesting to join her as legal re -presentative of deceased Shankar Lal. This appeal was allowed by the District Judge. The landowner, Madanawati, thereupon preferred an appeal to the Court of the Judicial Commissioner, Himachal Pradesh being appeal No. 59 of 1962 against the order of the District Judge joining the present Respondent Reshmoo as legal representative of deceased Shankar Lal. However, that appeal failed and was dismissed by the Judicial Commissioner on 4 -6 -1962, with the result that Respondent Reshmoo continued to remain on the record of the case as legal representative of deceased Shankar Lal.

(3.) AFTER recording evidence, the Compensation Officer found that the transaction of purchase of the disputed land in favour of present Appellant Varinder Singh was Benami, as the consideration for the purchase came from the funds which were of the ownership of Panu Ram, the father of minor purchaser Varinder Singh. In the opinion of the Compensation Officer, therefore, it was Pannu Ram who was the real landowner and, therefore, there was no question of application of the Sub -Section 2 of Section 11 of the Act. On consideration of the merits of the case the Compensation Officer concluded that the present Respondent Reshmoo was holding the land as tenant, and was entitled to acquire the right, title and interest of the landlord under Section 11(1) of the Act.