Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 118 (HP)

NAR SINGH v. BHIMI RAM

2001-06-26

S.S.NEGI

body2001
ORDER S.S. Negi, IAS. :- This is a revision petition by Sh. Nar Singh s/o Sh. Katoch. resident of village Bag, Tehsil Karsog. Distt. Mandi under Section 17 of H.P. Land Revenue Act against the order dated 2.6.1997 passed by the Commissioner Mandi division in case No.203/95 whereby the revision petition filed by the present petitioner was dismissed. 2. The facts giving rise to the case are that the present respondent Sh. Bhimi Ram presented an application to the Assistant Collector 1st Grade-cum-Land Reforms Officer. Karsog on 8.12.1993 requesting therein for correction of revenue entries in respect of the land comprised in khata No. 119/189. Khasra No.300. measuring 0-11-10 Bighas situated in Mauza Kot, Tehsil Karsog stating that he had obtained the land in suit from one smt. Pikhli his grand-mother by way of a will, who owned and possessed the said land.The Assistant Collector 1st Grade-cum Land Reforms Officer after processing the case conferred proprietary rights in respect of the lad comprised khasra No.300 measuring 0-11-10 bighas in favour of Shri Bhimi respondent excluding the share of minors and widow vide order dated 23.1.1995. This order was challenged by Sh. Nar Singh the present petitioner before the sub-divisonal Collector karsog on the grounds that the learned Assistant Collector-cum-Land Reforms Officer had decided the matter beyond his jurisdiction and there existed no relationship of landlord-tenant between the predecessors of the parties and that he himself was in possession of the land. 3. The learned Sub-Divisional collector after hearing both the parties and going through the record dismissed the appeal vide order dated 31.7.1995. 4. Feeling aggrieved of this order of the Sub-divisional Collector dated 31.7.1995. Sh. Nar Singh filed revision petition before the commissioner. Madi Division on the ground that Smt. Pikhli. the grand mother of the present respondent Shri Bhimi Ram could not make any will of the land until she become owner of the land inherited by her under tenancy. 5. The learned Commissioner after hearing both the parties and perusal of record, dismissed the revision petition vide order dated 2.6.1997 holding that by virtue of Sub-Section (3) of seciton 104 of the Act, the conferment of proprietory rights, was automatic from the date of issue of the notification by the state government in the official Gazette and as such smt. Pikhli had become owner of the land on the death of her husband Naru. Pikhli had become owner of the land on the death of her husband Naru. therefore she could bequeath her land to the respondent. 6. It is against this order of the learned Commissioner dated 2.6.1997. the present revision petition has been preferred before us. 7. The records were requisitioned and parties was afforded due opportunity to address their claims in the court. 8. The learned counsel for petitioners reiterated his stand taken before the lower courts and prayed that the revison petition be accepted on the ground that. Smt. Pikhli was not the owner of the land and hence she had no right to will away the same. It has also been contended that the said will was a result of fraud and misrepresentation. The learned counsel also urged that possession had not passed to the respondent and she could not have transferred the land due to specific bar under Section 113 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act. 9. After careful consideration of the submissions made on behalf of both the sides and perusal of records the revision petition is liable to be dismissed as the discussion hereinafter will show. 10. The admitted position of the matter is that shri Naru was a tenant holding land under the predecessors of the petitioners on payment of rent, as is clear from the revenue records. After his death Smt. Pikhi succeeded him. Once the position of Naru as tenant is clear, he is/was entitled to acquire ownership by operation of law under the provision of Sec. 104. H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act. Even if he did not acquire ownership of the land, his interest as tenant is inheritable under Section 45 of the aforesaid Act. The contention of the petitioner with regard to embargo on transfer of land by way of will under Section 113 of the Act is also misplaced since the provision of section 113 is not attracted as will does not constitute transfer within the meaning of expression "transfer" contemplated under the said provision. Therefore there is/was no bar on Smt. Pikhli to execute will in respect of the land in question. Therefore there is/was no bar on Smt. Pikhli to execute will in respect of the land in question. The claim of the petitioners being in possession of the land also appears to be unfounded as the revenue records show the respondents to be in, possession of the land, and that must be so, that is why he could acquire proprietary rights on the land as tenant. Consequently, the revision petition has no merits is therefore dismissed.11. Orders be communicated to the parties and the case file of this court be consigned to the record room after due completion.