PARKASH SINGH Vs. NASEEB SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard Mr. S.D. Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant, as well as Mr. S.C. Mansotra, learned Advocate for the respond -ent -1.

(2.) THIS Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the order dated: 10 -11 -2000 propounded by the learned Single Judge. By the aforesaid order, the learned Single Judge allowed the Civil Rule and held as under: - I am of the opinion that the view expressed by the Special Tribunal is not in accordance with the spirit of the Agrarian Reforms Act. Benefit has been given to a person who is serving in the Army and if on his share somebody is in cultivation, then the cultivation is to be treated as his personal cultivation. This is the plain meaning of the section 2(12)(g) and this has to be given effect to. In this view of the matter, the petitioner would be deemed to be in possession and is entitled to the same share as is being enjoyed by his brother. Agrarian Reforms Act is not to be interpreted in a manner, which has to cause prejudice in any manner, to a person and favour to other person. 

(3.) AGGRIEVED by the aforesaid order of the learned Single Judge, the appellant/respondent impugned its correctness in this appeal. It was contended by the appellant/respondent that a tiller, cultivating the land personally on 1st September, 1971 and onwards, is only entitled for the conferment of rights under Sections 4 and 8 of the Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as Act). That Sher Singh father, and uncle Kehar Singh never remained tiller of land in question on the crucial date of Kharif 1971 and onwards. It was only the appellant/ respondent who happened to be cultivating the land independently and in his own right as tenant continuously prior to, during Kharif 1971 and onwards. This is also evidenced from the Revenue Record. His further submission is that he has been confirmed, the right under Section 4 of the Act vide Mutation No. 209 as prospective owner.