Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 402 (HP)

HOKAMI DEVI v. HARNAM SINGH

2006-12-19

RAJWANT SANDHU

body2006
ORDER 1. This revision petition has arisen on the recommendation of Divisional Commissioner, Mandi Division dated 22.4.1999 passed by him in revision petition No. 134.97. 2. Brief facts of the case are that Shri Harnam Singh, present respondent No.1, after getting discharged from the Armed Forces, moved an application in From LR-V on 7.5.1985 before the Land Reforms Officer, Barsar for resumption of his land from the tenants. The Land Reforms Officer vide order dated 23.8.1988 accepted the application and Shri Harnam Singh and Malkiat Singh, present respondents were allowed to resume land from their tenants in equal share, Shri Rirku and others, tenants, challenged this order in appeal before the Collector, Distt. Hamirpur in the year .1990 which was rejected on 22.8.1991.Smt. Hukami Devi, present petitioner also filed another appeal against the same order of the Land Reforms Officer. Barsar dated 23.8.1988 before the Distt. Collector, Hamirpur on 13.11.1992 alleging that she was neither given notice nor informed and the order was passed in her absence. The learned Collector vide order dated 25.2.1992 accepted the appeal remanded the mater to the Land Reforms Officer, Barsar for deciding it afresh after giving an opportunity of being heard to the parties. The Land Reforms Officer, Barsar processed the case again. The applicants also filed an amended application whereby they restricted their claim to Khasra Nos. 332 and 333 and the Land Reforms Officer vide order dated 26.5.19954 ordered resumption of the land comprised in khasra No. 332/1, measuring 0-5 marlas and of the remaining area of the khasra Nos. 332/2 and 333 ownership rights were ordered to be conferred upon the present petitioner (tenant).Aggrieved by this order of Land Reforms Officer dated 26.5.1994, Smt. Hukami Devi filed a appeal before the Distt. Collector, Hamirpur, w(io vide order dated 27.10.1995 dismissed the same. Not satisfied by the order of the Collector, Hamirpur. She filed a revision petition before the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi Division who heard the parties and perused the record of the case and vide order dated 22.11999 has recommended the matter to this court holding that the petitioner is a widow and her share under tenancy cannot be resumed as such the courts below have committed illegalities and irregularities to take note of such lapses. It has been recommended that the orders passed by the Land Reforms Officer, Barsar and Distt. It has been recommended that the orders passed by the Land Reforms Officer, Barsar and Distt. Collector, Hamirpur are required to be struck down, and the matter may be remanded to the Land Reforms Officer, Barsar to decide it afresh after affording full opportunity of being heard to all concerned . Hence, this revision petition before this court. 3.The record of the case has been seen and counsel for the parties heard, Counsel for the petitioner stressed the grounds taken in the revision petition filed before the learned Divisional Commissioner and requested that the recommendation of the learned Divisional Commissioner dated 22.4.1999 may be accepted. 4. The learned counsel for the respondents stated that this was a case of resumption under Section 34 (dd) of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 and the Divisional Commissioner did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the revision petition in the matter. No point of law was involved in the case. It was only the issue of fact that had to be determined as to whether Shri Harnam Singh and his brother Shri Malkiat Singh were entitled for resumption of land. The learned Divisional Commissioner had not appreciated the law in the matter at all while stating that Smt. Hakami Devi was a widow and land under tenancy with her could not be resumed. Moreover, the ceiling mentioned regarding land that could be held by land owners for them to the eligible for resumption had been incorrectly mentioned by the Divisional Commissioner since both the respondents were persons who had sought resumption of the area under tenancy after leaving the army. Moreover, the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade (Land Reforms Officer) had visited the spot before accepting the resumption application, and Smt. Hukmi, Devi had full opportunity at that time to express her preference for the area that she would which to retain with her. In any case only a very small parcel of land measuring 5 marlas had been resumed by the owner Shri Harnam Singh from Smt. Hukami Devi. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner in rebuttal again stressed the issue of opportunity for selection of the area to be retained by her not having been afforded to Smt. Hukami Devi. 6. In any case only a very small parcel of land measuring 5 marlas had been resumed by the owner Shri Harnam Singh from Smt. Hukami Devi. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner in rebuttal again stressed the issue of opportunity for selection of the area to be retained by her not having been afforded to Smt. Hukami Devi. 6. Having perused the record and weighted the arguments of counsel for the parties, I am satisfied that no protection is available to Smt. Hukami Devi as a widow from resumption of the land under tenancy with her. Also, there is no evidence on record to show that Shri Harnam Singh had land in excess of that entitling him to be eligible for resumption. The record shows that Shri Harnam Singh had 11 kanals 5 marlas which is just about one acre. As per section 34(dd) of the H.P. tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 an ex-serviceman can resume upto 5 acres of land under tenancy. In this case the remained area in only 5 marlas. Since the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade (LRO) had visited the spot before finalizing the resumption case, I am satisfied also that Smt. Hukami Devi had ample opportunity to plead her case and to select the land that she wished to retain. Since she has not put forth any application in that regard, her case goes by default. The recommendation of the learned Divisional Commissioner in the matter is therefore not accepted and the orders of the Land Reforms Officer dated 26.5.1994 and the District Collector dated 27.10.1995 are upheld. Announced in the open court today the 19th December, 2006 at Hamirpur. Record of the courts below be returned and the case file of this court be consigned to the record room after due completion.