Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 405 (HP)

MEGH SINGH v. GOPAL DASS THAKUR

2006-12-20

RAJWANT SANDHU

body2006
ORDER 1. This revision petition has been preferred by the petitioners, Shri Megh Ram & others, under Section 114 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, against the order dated 17.10.1994 passed by the learned Divisional Commissioner, Kangra at Dharamshala in appeal No. 112/92, whereby the appeal of the present petitioners was dismissed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that Shri Gopal Das Thakur, present respondent filed an application in Form LR-V before the Land Reforms Officer, Kangra on 24.11.1975 for resumption of the land held by Shri Kirpu, father of the present petitioners as tenant. At the same time, he filed a suit under Section 34 read with Section 58 of the Act seeking ejectment of the tenant from this very piece of land. The suit for ejectment was disposed of separately and the matter was not agitated further. After enquiry, the Land Reforms Officer allowed the application for resumption on 30.11.1991 and ordered resumption of land bearing khasra No. 1383/762 and 1055, measuring 0-58-48 Hects. from the tenant. After the death of Shri Kirpa Ram, his sons Shri Megh Ram & others., challenged the order of the Land Reforms Officer in appeal before the Distt. Collector, Kangra who passed a detailed order on 27.04.1992 and dismissed the appeal. Feeling aggrieved by this order of the learned Collector, Shri Megh ram and other, present petitioners, filed another appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, Kangra who also dismissed the same on 17.10.1994 holding that the revenue Officer below had not committed any illegality or material irregularity as the land owner is a member of Armed Forces and entitled to resume the land from his tenants as per the provision of Section 104 (8), (9) of the Act ibid. Still aggrieved of the orders passed by the Commissioner dated 17.10.1994, Shri Megh Ram and four others have filed this revision petition before this court. 3. The main grounds taken in the revision petition are that the Land Reforms Officer, Collector as well as the Commissioner have not appreciated the facts of the case properly and have misinterpreted and mis read various documents placed before them. It has been averred that all the courts below have acted without jurisdiction. It has further been averred that the respondent can only take recourse to either resumption or ejectment and that as per his own admission, Shri Gopal Dass has 1-71-27 Hects. It has been averred that all the courts below have acted without jurisdiction. It has further been averred that the respondent can only take recourse to either resumption or ejectment and that as per his own admission, Shri Gopal Dass has 1-71-27 Hects. of land and therefore he could not resume land. 4. The record of the courts below as called for and examined. The arguments advanced by the Id. Counsel for the parties were heard. The Id. Counsel for the petitioner reiterated the grounds taken in the revision petition and argued that the application for resumption was initially filed in the year, 1975 but it remained pending as the matter was sub judice before the Honble High Court and thereafter the Honble Apex Court. According to him, the only issue involved in the matter is whether the application for resumption was maintainable. This application was withdrawn by the owner and therefore he could not claim relief on limitation. He contended that the owner could not claim resumption under Section 34 (dd) of the H.P. Tenancy & Land Reforms Act, 1972 as he had withdrawn his application for resumption. He further contended that the owner had retired from the Armed Forces in the year 1974 itself. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent argued that the. owner was covered within the provisions of Section 34 (dd) of the Act ibid and his entitlement was upto 5 acres of land. He contended that this provision gave benefit to army personnel to resume land from their tenants on retirement. He submitted that the learned commissioner had passed a well reasoned order which should be upheld. 6. Having perused the record and hearing the arguments advanced by the Id. counsel for both the parties. I find that the learned Commissioner has correctly interpreted the intent of legislation while arriving at the inference that the right of resumption is conferred on a land owner by Sub-section 9 of Section 104 of the Act without imposing thereupon, the fetters contemplated by Sub-section (1). A bare reading of sub section 9 reveals that for land owners mentioned in clauses (a) to (d) of Sub Section (8) the provisions of sub Section (1) of Section 104 for land owners other than mentioned in clauses (a) to (d) of Sub-section 8 while Clauses (d) and (dd) of Sub-section (1) of Section 34 applies to personnel of Armed forces. Thus the law, in such cases, gives a member of the Armed forces the right to resume land upto a maximum of five acres and this is not subject to any condition which would stipulate this unit of five acres after taking into account the land under self cultivation of the said member of Armed Forces. This is distinct from the limitation imposed upon landowners under Sub-section (1). Further, in my opinion, it is undisputed that Shri Kirpu, the father of the present appellants was inducted as a tenant after the respondent had joined the Armed forces. The application on form LR-V was also filed well within time. The only issue which remains is whether the respondent could have resumed five acres of land irrespective of land under his self cultivation. The provision of law as envisaged in the Act has been discussed herein above. The learned Divisional Commissioner has also in his order discussed the said provisions in detail and this discussion need not to be repeated here. I endorse the findings of the learned Divisional Commissioner, as the intention of the legislation is itself clearly evident on a bare perusal of Section 104 of the Act when read in its totality. All he courts below have arrived at concurrent finding of facts which need no interference in the present revision petition. The legal aspect of the matter at hand has been discussed herein above. In find no merit in the revision petition which is dismissed. 7. Announced in the open court today the 20.12.2006 at Dharamshala. 8, Record of the Courts below be returned and the case file of this court be consigned to the record from after due completion.