Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 624 (HP)

RAVAN v. SHRI ISHWAR SINGH

2016-04-30

NARINDER CHAUHAN

body2016
ORDER : 1. This revision petitioner has been preferred under Section 114 read with section 65 of the H.P. Tenancy & Land Reforms Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), against the order dated 24.09.2007, passed by the Commissioner, Kangra Division, in Appeals No.190/1996 and 191/1996, whereby both the appeals preferred by present respondents were allowed and the orders of the Distt. Collector, Kangra dated 31.7.1996, have been set aside, upholding the orders dated 14.5.1991 passed by the LRO, Dharamshala, District Kangra. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the present respondents being landowners, filed seven separate Form-LR-V for resumption of land from the present petitioners who were recorded as tenants under them qua the land situated in different revenue Estates in Tehsil Dharamshala, before the Land Reforms Officer (LRO), Dharamshala, which have been registered as case No.415D, 7/D, 1482/D, 26/D, 5/D, 8/D, and 6/D on 18.12.1989. The Ld. LRO, after following due process of law, allowed the applications through a common order dated 14.5.1991, and ordered resumption of half share of tenancy from all the tenants in favour of the owners. Feeling aggrieved by these orders of LRO, two separate appeals were filed before the Collector, Distt. Kangra, one by the present petitioners and proforma respondents against decision on RR-V No.415/D, which was registered as appeal no.22/91, and another by Shri Ram Singh, which was registered as appeals no.96/93. In appeal no.23/91 the main grounds were that father of the land owners could have resumed one unit of land and that the LR-V form was also filed after the prescribed period, that the LRO should have allowed resumption from the big tenants first and not from all the tenants. The Id. Collector, after hearing the parties and on perusal of the record of the LRO, allowed both the appeals through a single order dated 31.7.1996 and set aside order of the LRO, dated 14.5.1991. This appeal No.22/91 was allowed by the Collector, observing that the LR-V was not available in file no.415/D, and the certificate qua date of death of father of the respondents (land owners) was not available. It was further held that the LRO should have allowed resumption of land from the big tenants first. The appeal No.93/96 was allowed observing that the appellants were not afforded opportunity of being heard. It was further held that the LRO should have allowed resumption of land from the big tenants first. The appeal No.93/96 was allowed observing that the appellants were not afforded opportunity of being heard. Therefore, both the cases were remanded to the LRO Dharamshala, for fresh decision in accordance with law. 3. Feeling aggrieved with the above orders of the Distt. Collector (ADM), Kangra, the present respondents filed two separate appeals before the Ld. Commissioner, Kangra at Dharamshala. One appeal was filed by Shri Shamsher Singh & Ors (land owners) against Shri Ram Singh and others (tenants) registered as appeal no. 190/1996, and another by Shri Ishwar Singh and others (land owners) against present petitioners (tenants) registered as Appeal no.191/1996. The Id. Commissioner, clubbed both the appeals and vide the impugned orders dated 24.9.2007, upheld the resumption orders of the LRO, Dharamshala dated 14.5.1991 by setting aside the remand order dated 31.7.1996, passed by the Distt. Collector, Kangra. Hence, the present revision petition has been filed by petitioners who were respondents No.2 to 4 & 6 before the Id. Commissioner in appeal number 191/1996. 4. During the pendency of revision petition, petitioner no 2 (Naratu), petitioner no.4(a & e) Smt. Krishana Devi & Smt Kelodi Devi, respectively, and proforma respondent no. 10 (Udho Ram) expired, therefore, they have been deleted from the array of parties by substituting their legal heirs vide misc. application nos. 36/2013,149/09,8/2011 and 160/2011, respectively. 5. I have heard the Id. Counsel for both the parties and have also gone through the record of the courts below. Ld. Counsel for the petitioners while reiterating the grounds of the revision petition, argued that the Id. Commissioner has failed to appreciate the facts and provisions of law. That Ld. Commissioner has not taken into consideration the mandatory provisions of Rule 22 of the H.P. Tenancy & Land Reforms Rules, 1975, and has wrongly observed in para 9 of his order that there was no scope to resume some land from the bigger tenants. He further argued that the findings of the Ld. Commissioner regarding the verification on the death of the father of the respondents/land owners is also wrong since it was found by the Collector that on record no inquiry regarding the death of the father of the land owners has been made which was otherwise necessary while deciding the matter under section 104 of the Act. Commissioner regarding the verification on the death of the father of the respondents/land owners is also wrong since it was found by the Collector that on record no inquiry regarding the death of the father of the land owners has been made which was otherwise necessary while deciding the matter under section 104 of the Act. Further, it has been averred that Id. Collector has rightly held the plea of the tenants that the respondents (landowners) have been able to hold land more than their entitlement, and such findings are required to be taken into consideration. He has also alleged that it was the responsibility of the landowners to disclose their entire holding while filing LR-V, but in the instant case the landowners have not done so. Lastly, it has been contended that the Ld. Commissioner has failed to take into consideration that the Act has been enacted to benefit the tenants and not the land owners, therefore, the Id. Collector has rightly directed the LRO to pass fresh order after making proper inquiry regarding all the relevant facts, and that the impugned orders dated 24.9.2007 passed by the Ld. Commissioner, Kangra Division may be set aside. 6. Per contra, the Ld. Counsel for the respondents argued that the present respondents were landowner at the time of enactment of the Act and Rules framed thereunder, and, as such, the plea of the petitioners regarding death of the father of landowners is not acceptable. He further submitted that father of the respondents had died in the year 1958. Ld. Counsel for the respondents further argued that the entire holdings of the land owner at the time of filling LR-V form is to be taken into consideration and in the instant case the LRO, has decided the LR-V of the respondents after taking into consideration the entire holdings of the respondents. According to him, the jamabandi for the year 1971-72, of all landowners are to be seen, while the Act and Rules came into force on 21.2.1974 and Rules framed thereof came into force on 3.10.1975 and thereafter jamabandis have been updated several times. In support of his contention, Id. Counsel cited Prem Chand v. Rippu Daman Singh & Ors. 1993 (3) SLJ 2903. 7. On considering the arguments advanced by the Id. In support of his contention, Id. Counsel cited Prem Chand v. Rippu Daman Singh & Ors. 1993 (3) SLJ 2903. 7. On considering the arguments advanced by the Id. Counsel for both the parties following two points arises for adjudication: (i) Whether the date of death of father of landowners is relevant in, the instant case? (ii) Whether the provisions of rule 22 have been followed by the Land Reforms Officer? 8. In order toe answer these issues, it would be appropriate to discuss some of the relevant provisions of the Act and H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules). From the perusal of the record, it is clear that the tenants were recorded as non-occupancy tenants Section 104(1)(i)(ii) of the Act entitled a landowner to resume land, either one and a half acres of irrigated land or there acres of un-irrigated land under tenancy from one or more than one tenants for his personal cultivation before the date to be notified by the State Government in Official Gazette. As per rule 21 of the Rules, application for resumption in Form LR-V has to be made to Land Reforms Officer by land owners other than those mentioned in sub-section (8) of section 104 upto 31.12.1975 9. In the instant case, it has not been disputed at to whether the Forms LR-V were filed within the prescribed time period or not. The respondents who filed Form LR-V were owners of land at the time of enactment of the Act and a Rules framed thereunder, and thus each of them were entitled to resume land for their personal cultivation upto the limits prescribed in Section 104(1)(i). Even in case, their father would have been alive at that time, which is not the case at hand, and had they been recorded as landowners, they would have enjoyed the benefit provided by the legislature under section 104(1)(i) of the Act. Hence, the dated death of the father of respondents is not relevant when they themselves are recorded as landowners in the record-of-rights. 10. Second proviso below section 104(1)(i), stipulates that the landowner shall not be entitled to resume from a tenant more than one half of the tenancy land. Hence, the dated death of the father of respondents is not relevant when they themselves are recorded as landowners in the record-of-rights. 10. Second proviso below section 104(1)(i), stipulates that the landowner shall not be entitled to resume from a tenant more than one half of the tenancy land. Further rule 22 of the Rules provides that if the land of the landowner is with more than one tenant from whom he intends to resume land under the provisions of section 104, he shall select the land for resumption from the tenant holding the largest area of tenancy land and then from the tenants who hold less tenancy land in a descending order. The perusal of record shows that half or the tenancy land from each tenant has been ordered to be resumed by the LRO and none of the landowners have been allowed to resume land more than their entitlement under the Act. Hence, the Land Reforms Office has rightly followed the provisions of rule 22. So for as the allegation of the petitioners specifically with regard to observation made by the Ld. Commissioner, Kangra, in para 9 of the impugned order is concerned, the same is wrong and a misconstruction on the part of the petitioners. In ground (b) of the revision petition while reproducing some part of impugned order passed by the Ld. Commissioner, the petitioners have replaced the word "more" appearing in said order, by word "some" which has totally differed connotation. 11. So far as the contention of the petitioners qua non-disclosure of entire land under self cultivation is concerned the petitioners have failed to produce any relevant document in this behalf Moreover, the land which was under self cultivation at the time of filing of Form LR V was to be taken into consideration. Any land acquired in any manner after filing of Form LR-V cannot be taken into consideration for the purpose of Section 104 (1). 12. In view of above detailed discuss ion, I find no illegality or irregularity in the order dated 24.09.2007, passed by the Id. Commissioner, Kangra Division in appeal No.191/1996, which same require no interference. Hence, the present revision petition is hereby dismissed being devoid of any merit. 13. Order be communicated to the parties. The record of the courts below be returned and the file of this court be consigned to the record room after due completion.