Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 21 (HP)

KISHORE CHAND v. DALIP SINGH

2000-01-29

R.BHATTACHARYYA

body2000
ORDER 1. The dispute in this case pertains to land appurtenent to Khata No. 6 min Khatoni No. 104 Khasra Nos. 225, 226, 233, 242, 256, 264, 269, 273, 335, 337, 494, 614, 627, 692 measuring 9 Kanal 2 Marlas situated in Tikka Kangra-Tapa Ugliyata, Tehsil and Distt. Hamirpur which was held by Mahantu father of the present petitioner Kishore Chand under Dalip Singh respondent landowner. The said landowner applied for the ejectment of the tenant from the land on the ground that he was a small landowner in the year 1965 before the Assistant Collector 1st Grade Hamirpur who after considering the objections raised by the predecessor-in-interest of the present petitioner allowed the application vide his order dated 23.3.1966 but he also imposed a conditionally that actual ejectment would take place only after the tenant was re-settled on the surplus land, it appears that the said tenant has not been re-settled on any surplus land and therefore the ejectment orders passed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade on 23.3.1996 has not been executed. An application for execution was filed by the respondent before the collector Sub-Division but that was rejected by him vide his orders dated 31.12.1982 on the ground that the tenant Mahantu or his son Kishore Chand had not been settled on the surplus land. But Subsequently the matter was carried further in appeal before the Distt. Collector who directed the Sub-Divisional Collector, Hamirpur to make an enquiry as to the availability of surplus land in Tehsil Hamirpur for re-settlement of the said tenants by his orders passed on 6.12.1983. The present petitioners challenged these orders before the Commissioner Kangra Division who rejected the appeal on 28.6.1986; which order is in challenge before us in present revision. 2. Perusal of records shows that the respondent Dalip Singh filed a suit for issuing directions to the State of Himachal Pradesh to deliver the possession of the land to him from the said tenants. The Sub-Judge Hamirpur decreed the suit for possession of land in dispute with directions to the State of H.P. to re-settle the tenant Kishore Chand within a period of six months so that the possession of land could be delivered to Dalip Singh, The present petitioner filed an appeal before the Distt. Judge Hamirpur on the ground that Civil Court had no jurisdictions in the matter. The Distt. Judge Hamirpur on the ground that Civil Court had no jurisdictions in the matter. The Distt. Judge accepted the appeal and set aside the order of the Sub-Judge by his order dated 29.1.1991. But while passing this order, the learned Distt. Judge also observed that prima-facte Kishore Chand petitioner shall be deemed to have acquired the proprietory rights and his possession w.e.f. 3.10.1975 shall be deemed to be as an owner. The matter was still assailed in further appeal before the Honble High Court of HP. who set aside the appeal of the present respondent on 4.8.1997 in RSA No. 236/91. But the Honble High Court also observed that the observations of the Distt. Judge Hamirpur as to acquisition of proprietory rights by the tenant was in the nature of obiter-dictum. 3. It is in this back-drop that the present revision petition has filed. The entire records of the case were requisitioned and have been gone through. The learned counsels appearing on behalf of both the sides have filed written arguments which have also been gone through. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that his ejectment from the land held under tenancy was conditional depending upon his re-settlement on the surplus land and his un-interrupted possession on the land has resulted into ownership after coming into force the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 as, according to petitioner the learned Distt. Judge has also observed in his orders. Our view in the matter like this also came up in an earlier revision petition filed before this court titled as Mansha Devi and Ors. v/s Charan Singh & Ors., Revision No. 247/86 in which similar set of facts and similar question of law was involved. Our view in the matter was, which we still hold, that the order of ejectment passed by Assistant Collector 1st Grade on 23.3.1966 remain un-assailed and subsisting, though passed under the provisions of Punjab Security and Land Tenures Act which is saved under the provisions of successor Act which provide that the repeal of the Punjab Act shall hot affect previous operation of the Act and anything done or any action taken under the corresponding provision of the successor Act will preserve the rights that a person may have acquired under the repealed law. It was accordingly held that there was valid ejectment order and the said tenants are to be evicted from the land in accordance with the order of the ejectment. The contention of the petitioner that he had become owner by operation of law as per section 104 of H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act as their possession on the land continued un-interrupted even after ejectment order were passed was also raised in the aforesaid case and our considered view was that the possession of the tenants, though continued, but their status was not that of a tenant since that relationship got terminated at the time when order of ejectment was passed against the tenants in the year 1966, therefore the tenants were held not entitled to be conferred the ownership rights on the land under the Tenancy and Land! Reforms Act. in view of the similar facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the tenants are liable to be ejected from the land held under tenancy by him in accordance with the ejectment orders of the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade passed in the year 1966 and question of conferring the proprietory rights under the provisions of H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 upon them does not arise. We are fortified in our view by the Honble High Court of H.P. in C.W.P. No. 24/98 in which the legality and propriety of the order passed by us in Revision No. 247/86 supra was called in question in the Honble High Court. The Honble High Court has affirmed our view in the matter. The observations of the learned Distt. Judge that prima-fact Shri Kishore Chand shall be deemed to have acquired proprietory and his possession from 3rd of Oct., 1975 shall be deemed to be as owner is in the nature of an obiter-dictum as held by the Honble High Court in order dated 4.8.1997 in RSA No. 237 of 1991. Resultantly the petitioner is not entitled for any relief under the provisions of H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 and is liable to be ejected from the land held under tenancy as per ejectment orders of the Assistant Collector 1st Grade and his resettlement on the surplus land be made in accordance with the orders of the Distt. Collector Hamirpur within a period of three months. Collector Hamirpur within a period of three months. The interest of the petitioner is not prejudiced in any manner as a result of his ejectment from the land as he is to be settled on the surplus land in lieu of the land he surrenders to the landowner. 5. In view of the discussion here-in-above, the Revision petition does not have any merit and is therefore accordingly dismissed. 6. Orders be communicated to the parties and the file of this court be consigned to Record Room after due completion.