Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1269 (GAU)

Baleswar Rangpi v. Bahar Ali (Md. )

2017-09-08

ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA

body2017
JUDGMENT : Achintya Malla Bujor Barua, J. 1. Heard Mr. R. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Nath, learned Addl. Senior Govt. Advocate appearing on behalf of the state respondents. None appears for the respondent No. 1. By an order dated 13.05.2011, the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 had been struck off from the array of respondents. The father of the petitioners, namely, Prabhat Rangpi was an occupancy tenant under Md. Hussain, Son of late Dhan Mahamad, who was the landlord in respect of a cultivable land measuring 4 Bighas of KP Patta No. 100 of Dag No. 14(Old)/703(New) of Village Pamohi under Ramcharani Mouza in the Kamrup (Metro) District. 2. On the death of Prabhat Rangpi, the present petitioners are the occupancy tenants. During his lifetime, Prabhat Rangpi, being the occupancy tenant under the Assam (Temporarily Settled Areas) Act, 1971 and the Rules framed thereunder, had paid the regular chukani to the landlord Md. Hussain. Chukani is 1/5th of the products of the land cultivated by the occupancy tenant. The occupancy tenant was also allotted with ryoti khatinan No. 54. It is stated that the said khatian is still in force and the khatian was also duly published in the Assam Gazette. 3. On the death of the occupancy tenant Prabhat Rangpi, his two sons being the present writ petitioners had applied for a mutation on inheritance in respect of the ryoti rights. The competent authority upon completion of all formalities, by following due procedure of law, had granted mutation in favour of the present petitioners on 19.08.1995 and thereafter, by deleting the name of Prabhat Rangpi, the names of the petitioners were entered in the ryoti khatian on 08.07.1997. It is stated that upon inheritance, the present petitioners have also been paying the chukani to the landlord in the same manner as was earlier paid by their predecessor-in-interest Prabhat Rangpi. 4. A relevant fact is that one Bahar Ali, being the present respondent No. 1 had purchased the concerned plot of land, from the landlord Md. Hussain through a registered sale deed No. 4936 dated 15.05.69. Upon such purchase, the respondent No. 1 Bahar Ali got his name mutated and the related jamabandi was also corrected. 4. A relevant fact is that one Bahar Ali, being the present respondent No. 1 had purchased the concerned plot of land, from the landlord Md. Hussain through a registered sale deed No. 4936 dated 15.05.69. Upon such purchase, the respondent No. 1 Bahar Ali got his name mutated and the related jamabandi was also corrected. In view of the change of landlord, the present writ petitioners upon inheriting the ryoti right from their father Prabhat Rangpi, have been paying the required chukani to the new landlord being the respondent No. 1, Bahar Ali. 5. In the aforesaid factual background, the present writ petitioners submitted an application before the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup, Guwahati in the year 1995 by which, the petitioners claimed a right of ownership over the ryoti land under Section 23 of the Assam (Temporarily Settled Areas) Tenancy Act, 1971, (hereinafter referred as the Tenancy Act, 1971). The said application was registered as Case No. 66/1995, which was decided by the Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup, Guwahati vide order dated 29.9.95. 6. In the order dated 29.09.95, the Addl. Deputy Commissioner considered the fact that the predecessor-in-interest of the writ petitioners namely, Prabhat Rangpi was issued the final ryoti khatian No. 54, in respect of his ryoti rights over the land in question, which was subsequently acquired by the present writ petitioners on inheritance. Accordingly, the Addl. Deputy Commissioner arrived at a conclusion that the present petitioners are eligible for the ownership right over the land. It was provided that the petitioners would acquire the ownership right over 4 Bighas of the land of K.M. Patta No. 100 Dag No. 703 of Pamohi village under Ramcharani Mouza, on payment of compensation amounting to Rs. 146/-, as assessed under Section 24 of the Tenancy Act, 1971 being 50 times of the revenue payable by the ryot to the owner of the land. 7. Accordingly, the petitioners had deposited the amount of Rs. 146/- by way of treasury chalan in the State Bank of India, Guwahati Branch under head of Account No. 8443 Revenue Department. Against the order dated 29.09.95, the respondent No. 1 preferred an appeal before the learned Assam Board of Revenue being appeal Case No. 188 RA(K) of 1995. 7. Accordingly, the petitioners had deposited the amount of Rs. 146/- by way of treasury chalan in the State Bank of India, Guwahati Branch under head of Account No. 8443 Revenue Department. Against the order dated 29.09.95, the respondent No. 1 preferred an appeal before the learned Assam Board of Revenue being appeal Case No. 188 RA(K) of 1995. The said appeal was disposed of by the learned Assam Board of Revenue by its order dated 14.03.97 by arriving at a conclusion that the required procedure of acquiring ownership right under Section 23(1) of the Tenancy Act, 1971 was not followed in the instant case and further adequate opportunity was not given to the respondent No. 1 to file objection against the report contained in Form-6. The learned Board of Revenue was also of the view that under Section 23 of the Tenancy Act, 1971, the occupancy tenant is required to prove that he had personally cultivated the land, but in the instant case, there is no such finding to that effect. Accordingly, by the judgment and order dated 14.03.1997, the learned Board of Revenue remanded back the matter to the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup for fresh consideration. On the matter being remanded back, the Addl. Deputy Commissioner Kamrup by the order dated 07.09.2004 came to a finding that there is a final ryoti khatian in favour of the petitioners and considering the matter from all directions, the earlier order dated 29.09.1995 was upheld. 8. Against the order dated 07.09.2004, the respondent No. 1 had preferred another appeal before the learned Assam Board of Revenue, which was registered as appeal Case No. 117 RA(K).2004. The said appeal 117RA(K)/2004 was decided by the judgment order dated 11.05.2007. In the judgment dated 11.05.2007, the learned Assam Board of Revenue had taken note of the fact that the respondent No. 1 had purchased the land in question in the year 1969 and he got his name mutated on the basis of his title and possession and the revenue records were accordingly corrected in his name. It is also noted that the respondent No. 1 is a physically disabled person and, as such, he had been cultivating the land with the help of some other person. It is also noted that the respondent No. 1 is a physically disabled person and, as such, he had been cultivating the land with the help of some other person. The learned Assam Board of Revenue also took note of the fact that it was one of the specific ground of the respondent No. 1 that he is a physically disabled person and therefore, under the proviso to Section 21 of the Tenancy Act, 1971, there is an exemption as regards acquiring ownership right. The learned Assam Board of Revenue accordingly took cognizance of the documents produced by the respondent No. 1 and arrived at a finding that the respondent No. 1 is a physically disabled person. As per the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent No. 1, the relevant document upon which the learned Board of Revenue had arrived at its conclusion that the respondent No. 1 is a physically disabled person, is a certificate dated 09.11.95 of the S.D.M. & H.O. (E. Duty) in the Office of the Joint Director, Health Services, which is annexed as Annexure-B to the said affidavit-in-opposition. 9. Having arrived at its conclusion that the respondent No. 1 is a physically disabled person, the learned Board of Revenue concluded that the order of the Addl. Deputy Commissioner dated 07.09.2004 is not sustainable and accordingly, the said order was set aside. 10. The implication of the said order dated 07.09.2004 being set aside is that the claim of the petitioners for ownership of the tenanted land under Section 21 of the Tenancy Act, 1971 stood rejected. 11. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 11.05.2007 of the learned Assam Board of Revenue, this writ petition has been preferred on the ground that setting aside of the order dated 07.09.2004 of the Addl. Deputy Commissioner had been made without considering the relevant provisions of the Tenancy Act, 1971. In the affidavit-in-opposition of the respondent No. 1, the stand taken is that the petitioners had made the application for the ownership right by making false statements and the Addl. Deputy Commissioner, without making proper enquiry as to the nature and possession of the land and also without considering the objection of the respondent No. 1, had wrongly passed the order dated 07.09.2004. 12. Deputy Commissioner, without making proper enquiry as to the nature and possession of the land and also without considering the objection of the respondent No. 1, had wrongly passed the order dated 07.09.2004. 12. From a perusal of the averments made in the writ petition as well as in the affidavit of the respondent No. 1 and the affidavit-in-reply of the writ petitioner, no such averments have been found which indicates as to what extent the respondent No. 1 is physically disabled. Apart from the certificate dated 11.11.95 of the S.D.M & H.O (E. Duty) in the Office of the Joint Director, Health Services that the respondent No. 1 is found to be orthopaedically physically disabled person in his right hand, there is no further material to arrive at any conclusion as to what is the nature and extent of the physical disability and as to when such physical disability had been acquired by the respondent No. 1. The aforesaid fact when looked into from the point of view of the provisions of the Tenancy Act, 1971, a relevant question for determination would be as to what is the effect of the proviso to Section 21 of the Tenancy Act, 1971 and as to whether the said proviso by itself gives an absolute right to the land owner to deny ownership to a occupancy tenant merely on a stated reason that he is a physically disabled or as to whether the effect of the said proviso is circumscribed to some extent. 13. The object and reason of the Tenancy Act, 1971, inter alia, provides that the Tenancy Act, 1971 has been incorporated to repeal the earlier Assam (Temporarily Settled Districts) Tenancy Act, 1935 and also the related Adhiars Protection and Regulation Act, 1948. Further object and reason of the Tenancy Act, 1971 is that the said Act provides for an easy method for the tenant or under-tenant to become an owner himself. 14. The earlier Act, being the Assam (Temporarily Settled Districts) Tenancy Act, 1935 inter alia provided for regulating the procedure for payment of rent by the occupancy tenant to the land owner and the protection given to such occupancy tenants for continuation of the tenancy on the rents being paid on a regular basis. 14. The earlier Act, being the Assam (Temporarily Settled Districts) Tenancy Act, 1935 inter alia provided for regulating the procedure for payment of rent by the occupancy tenant to the land owner and the protection given to such occupancy tenants for continuation of the tenancy on the rents being paid on a regular basis. On the other hand, the Assam Adhiars Protection and Regulation Act, 1948, inter alia provides for certain protection to the Adhiars, against the arbitrary ouster by the landlord and also for fixation of the appropriate rent. The said Act defines Adhiar to mean the person who under the system generally cultivates the land of another person on the condition of delivering a share or quantity of the products of such land to the other person. 15. On a reading of both the aforesaid Acts, being the Assam (Temporarily Settled Districts) Tenancy Act 1935, as well as the Assam Adhiar Protection and Regulation Act, 1948, it is discernible that both the said Acts protect the tenancy right of the tenants against any arbitrary action on the part of the land owner. But the said two Acts nowhere provides for any such provisions by which the occupancy tenant or the adhiar can claim a right of ownership of the tenanted land. On the other hand, as has already been noted, the object and reason for the Tenancy Act, 1971 amongst others, is that a new feature had been added to the effect that the said Act enables the occupancy tenant for an easy method to become himself the owner of the tenanted land. 16. In such view of the matter, this Court is of the view that one of the pertinent provisions of the Tenancy Act, 1971 is to provide for acquiring the right of ownership in favour of the occupancy tenant who continues to remain as such for a certain period of time. In such view of the matter, as regards the provision for acquiring ownership over the tenanted land, the Tenancy Act, 1971 has to be construed to be a beneficial legislation in favour of the occupancy tenant. 17. In such view of the matter, as regards the provision for acquiring ownership over the tenanted land, the Tenancy Act, 1971 has to be construed to be a beneficial legislation in favour of the occupancy tenant. 17. In the aforesaid background, Section 21 of the Tenancy Act, 1971 provides that notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any law, custom, or agreement, an occupancy tenant who personally cultivates the land of his tenancy, shall be entitled to acquire the right, title and interest of his landlord, which in other words, acquires the ownership right over the land in question. It may be noted that Section 21 begins with the expression notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, which by itself is a non-obstante clause and the legal interpretation of a non-obstante clause is that such provision have precedence over any other right that may be available under any other law. 18. In such view of the matter, Section 21 of the Tenancy Act, 1971 has to be construed to be a provision which gives an absolute right to the occupancy tenant to have ownership right over the tenanted land subject to the condition that occupancy tenant was himself personally cultivating the land. Section 23 of the Tenancy Act 1971 further provides that any occupancy tenant, who personally cultivates the land of his tenancy, desires to acquire ownership right of his landlord may make an application in writing to the Deputy Commissioner at any time. The provision that such an application for acquiring the ownership right can be made at any time gives an indication that there is no such time limit for the occupancy tenant to make an application for ownership and the application can be made at any stage depending on the convenience and the situation which may favour the occupancy tenant for acquiring such occupancy right. Paragraph 21 and 23 are quoted herein below:- "21. Acquisition of ownership rights and intermediary rights by tenants:-Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any law, custom, or agreement, an occupancy tenant personally cultivating the land of his tenancy, shall be entitled to acquire the rights, titles and interests of his land-lord, hereinafter called the 'ownership rights' according to the provisions of Section 23(1). Acquisition of ownership rights and intermediary rights by tenants:-Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any law, custom, or agreement, an occupancy tenant personally cultivating the land of his tenancy, shall be entitled to acquire the rights, titles and interests of his land-lord, hereinafter called the 'ownership rights' according to the provisions of Section 23(1). Provided that where the holding of an occupancy tenant is being cultivated by an under-tenant as defined in the Assam (Temporarily Settled District) Tenancy Act, 1935, from any date prior to enforcement of this Act, such under-tenant shall be entitled to acquire the rights, titles and interests of his landlord, hereinafter called 'the intermediary rights' and also the ownership rights of the land owner of the holding according to provisions of Section 23(II). Provided further that the ownership rights of any land of a landlord who is widow or a minor or physically or mentally disabled person or a member of the Defence Service shall not be liable to acquisition under the Provisions of this Chapter. 23. Acquisition of ownership rights and intermediary rights by tenants:- (I) Any occupancy tenant personally cultivating the land of his tenancy, desirous of acquiring the ownership rights of his landlord may at any time make an application in writing to the Deputy Commissioner and on such application being made and compensation as provided in Section 25 is determined and paid by the occupancy tenant, the Deputy Commissioner shall declare the said occupancy tenant to have acquired the ownership rights free from all encumbrances. (II) Any under-tenant, as defined in The Assam (Temporarily Settled Districts) Tenancy Act, 1935, cultivating the holding of an occupancy tenant or non-occupancy tenant from a date prior to commencement of this Act, desirous of acquiring the intermediary rights of his land-lord and the ownership rights of the landowner of his holding, may at any time make an application in writing to the Deputy Commissioner, and on such application being made and compensation as provided in Section 24 is determined and paid by the under-tenant, the Deputy Commissioner shall declare the said under-tenant to have acquired the intermediary rights of his landlord and the ownership rights of his holding free from all encumbrances."? 19. 19. In the above context, when we examine the 2nd proviso to Section 21 of the Tenancy Act, 1971, it is noticeable that such right of ownership to an occupancy tenant can be denied under certain circumstances, i.e., in the event the land owner is a widow, or is a minor, or a physically or mentally disabled person, or a member of the defence services. From a reading of category of persons, in whose cases claim for ownership right may be denied to an occupancy tenant, it is discernible that all such classes of person belongs to such category who due to their inherent characteristics, are unable to indulge in personal cultivation of the land in question. 20. In other words, the purpose of incorporating the 2nd proviso to Section 21 of the Tenancy Act, 1971 is that the category of persons who are unable to indulge in personal cultivation of the land and are required to engage some other person for the purpose of cultivation, are therefore, exempted from the provision of Section 21, which otherwise provides the occupancy tenant to have a right of acquiring ownership. 21. In view of the aforesaid purpose of incorporating the 2nd proviso, the question that has to be examined is as to whether the 2nd proviso by itself is an absolute bar for the occupancy tenant to acquire the ownership right or the said proviso is to some extent circumscribed and not an absolute bar. In the case of widow, it can easily be said that by virtue of her position, such category of person will have an inherent disability in engaging herself in personal cultivation of the land. Similar would be the case of minor, who would also have an inherent disability to engage in personal cultivation of the land. Therefore, in respect of such category of person like the widow or a minor, it has to be construed that as long as the widow remains the land owner or the minor does not attain majority, an occupancy tenant will not have such right under Section 21 to acquire the ownership right. But at the same time, once the ownership of the land posses on some other legal heir, who may not be a widow, or the minor attains the majority, such right of the occupancy tenant to acquire ownership would stand revived. But at the same time, once the ownership of the land posses on some other legal heir, who may not be a widow, or the minor attains the majority, such right of the occupancy tenant to acquire ownership would stand revived. Such an interpretation also finds support from the proviso of Section 23, which clearly provides that such application for ownership can be made at any time, meaning thereby, if such application is made at an stage when the widow no longer continues to be a land owner, the right of ownership under Section 21 can be availed by an occupancy tenant. Similar would be the case of a minor that once the minor becomes a major, such protection under the 2nd proviso to Section 21 would no further be available. 22. On the other hand, in case of a physically disabled person, or a mentally disabled person, the 2nd Proviso would have to be interpreted as to what extent of physical or mental disability of the concerned person would constitute a physical or mental disability, so as to be entitled to the benefit of the proviso. A minor physical incapacity in the body can also be construed to be a case of having physical disability, but at the same time, such minor incapacity may not be sufficient enough to lead to a situation, where a person suffering from such incapacity is totally incapacitated from undertaking any work. There may be certain types of disability which by itself would not prevent the person suffering from it, from undertaking a particular kind of work whereas on the other hand there may be other kind of disabilities which by itself would be sufficient to prevent a person from doing the required work. Therefore the relevant factor in understanding the 2nd proviso to Section 21 in respect of a physically disabled person would be as to what is the degree and intensity of the physical disability that such person may suffer. In the context of 2nd proviso to Section 21 of the Tenancy Act, 1971 the relevant consideration would be whether because of such disability, the concerned person would be unable to undertake the work of personally cultivating the land, in question. In the context of 2nd proviso to Section 21 of the Tenancy Act, 1971 the relevant consideration would be whether because of such disability, the concerned person would be unable to undertake the work of personally cultivating the land, in question. The aforesaid fact as to whether the extent of disability suffered by the land owner would be sufficient enough to prevent him from undertaking the personal cultivation of the land would be a question for determination to be made by the appropriate authority. In terms of the above, this Court is accordingly of the view that the provisions of the 2nd Proviso to Section 21 of the Tenancy Act, 1971 is circumscribed to the extent that it is merely a provision by which certain categories of persons are protected from losing their ownership right over the land as because due to their inherent physical or mental condition they are unable to undertake such personal cultivation. 23. Therefore, the true determination of the 2nd proviso would be whether their inherent condition would prevent them from undertaking activity of personal cultivation. In such view of the matter, while invoking the 2nd proviso of Section 21, a further determination would also have to be made by the concerned authority as to whether the inherent condition of the person seeking its protection, prevents such person from undertaking the activity of personal cultivation. 24. The aforesaid interpretation of 2nd proviso to the Tenancy Act, 1971 find further credence form the rules of interpretation as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its various decisions. 25. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raghuthilakathirtha Sreepadangalavani Swamiji v. State of Mysore reported in 1966 AIR (SC) 1172 has laid down in paragraph 16 that:- ".....the exception cannot swallow up the rule .... the general proposition that an exception cannot swallow the general rule....." In Director of Education (Secondary) v. Pushpendra Kumar & Ors., reported in (1998) 5 SCC 192 , in paragraph-8, it has been held as follows:- ".......An exception cannot subsume the main provision to which it is an exception and thereby nullify the main provision by taking away completely the right conferred by the main provision......" In the case of Macbeth & Ors. v. Ashley & Ors., reported in (1874) 2 SC and Div 352, it has been held as under:- "....There is to be a general rule, and there may be an exception; but if the exception is to swallow up the rule, it ceases of course to be an exception at all, and that which might fairly have been an exercise of discretion becomes no exercise of the kind of discretion mentioned in this Act...." In Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Board of Revenue, Madras v. Ramkishan Shrikishan Jhaver reported in 1968 AIR (SC) 59, it had been provided that the question whether the proviso is by way of an exception or it is a condition to the subjective provision or whether it is in itself a substantive provision, must be determined on the substance of the proviso and not in its form. 26. In the instant case as has been discussed above, the purpose of the 2nd proviso to Section 21 of the Tenancy Act, 1971 is that it is an enabling provision to protect such category of landlords, who due to their inherent condition cannot undertake the act of the personal cultivation of the land in question and therefore, they are necessarily required to engage some other persons in undertaking the cultivation. 27. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhavnagar University v. Palitana Sugar Mill Private Ltd. reported in 2003 (2) SCC 111 in paragraph-16 has held that: "it is also settled that the a beneficial legislation must be liberally construed so as to fulfill the statutory purpose and not to frustrate it." 28. In the instant case, as has already concluded that the Tenancy Act, 1971 is a beneficial legislation for the benefit of occupancy tenants, in order to enable them to acquire the ownership right over the tenanted land. It being so, the 2nd proviso of Section 21 would have to be construed in a manner that the said proviso is not an absolute bar on acquiring the ownership. 29. In such view of the matter, an appropriate interpretation of the 2nd proviso would be that in respect of the physical disabled person, there has to be a factual determination as to whether the extent and intensity of the physical disability is such that it prevents the person concerned from undertaking the act of personally cultivating the land. 29. In such view of the matter, an appropriate interpretation of the 2nd proviso would be that in respect of the physical disabled person, there has to be a factual determination as to whether the extent and intensity of the physical disability is such that it prevents the person concerned from undertaking the act of personally cultivating the land. In the aforesaid premises, the conclusion of the learned Assam Board of Revenue that order of the Addl. Deputy Commissioner dated 09.07.2004 is to be set aside, merely on the basis of certificate issued by the 09.11.95 of the S.D.M.N. & H.O, is found to be unsustainable in its present form. 30. The learned Assam Board of Revenue merely arrives at a conclusion that the order dated 07.09.2004 is not sustainable as because the respondent No. 1 is a physically disabled person, without further going into the question as to whether the extent and intensity of such physical disablement was sufficient enough to prevent the respondent No. 1 from undertaking physical cultivation of the land in question. Further, there is no finding by the Assam Board of Revenue as to whether the certificate dated 09.11.95 of the S.D.M.N. & H.O in the Office of the Joint Director of Health Services, Kamrup had been issued upon due verification and assessment of the physical disability of the petitioner. 31. In this respect, the proviso to Rule 4 of the persons of disabilities (Equal Opportunity, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Rules 1996, (in short Disabilities Rule), is also taken note of. 32. Rule 4 of the Disabilities Rule 1996 provides that the disability certificate shall be issued by a Medical Board duly constituted by the Central and State Govt. Further Sub-Rule 2 of Rule 4 provides that the State Government may constitute the Medical Board comprising of atleast 3 members, out of which one shall be specialized in the particular field for assessing the visual/hearing disability of the concerned person. 33. The aforesaid provision of the Rule although cannot be directly made applicable in case of assessing the physical disability of the person for the purpose of the Tenancy Act, 1971, but the same can be taken to be an indicator as to what would be the appropriate authority for assessing the physical disability. 33. The aforesaid provision of the Rule although cannot be directly made applicable in case of assessing the physical disability of the person for the purpose of the Tenancy Act, 1971, but the same can be taken to be an indicator as to what would be the appropriate authority for assessing the physical disability. In such view of the matter also this Court is of the view that a more appropriate procedure for obtaining the disability certificate would be for the disabled person to undergo an examination by a Medical Board which would consist of atleast of one expert as regards the physical disability claimed by the concerned person. In above view of the matter, the judgment of the learned Assam Board of Revenue dated 11.05.2007 in appeal Case No. 117RA(K)/2004, in setting aside the order of ownership in favour of the occupancy tenants, merely on the ground that the respondent No. 1 is a physical disabled person, without undergoing exercise to determine the extent and intensity of the disability is unsustainable. 34. Accordingly, this matter is remanded back to the Addl. Deputy Commissioner for a fresh assessment as regards the claim of ownership and eligibility for ownership of the petitioner as regards the tenanted land under Section 21 of the Tenancy Act, 1971. While undertaking such assessment, the Addl. Deputy Commissioner shall also take into consideration the plea of the respondent No. 1 that he is a physically disabled person and while doing so, the Deputy Commissioner shall cause an enquiry as to the actual extent and intensity of the physical disability of the respondent No. 1 and arrive at a conclusion as to whether the disability by itself prevents the respondent No. 1 from under taking personal cultivation of the land in question. The Addl. Deputy Commissioner shall direct the respondent No. 1 to subject himself to a Medical Board to be constituted by the State Government, which would consist of atleast one expert in the field of physical disability, as claimed by the petitioner. On the matter being remanded back, the Addl. Deputy Commissioner shall issue notice upon the petitioner as well as to the respondent No. 1 and give them an opportunity of hearing and also to produce any relevant materials that they may desire to produce to substantiate their respective claims. On the matter being remanded back, the Addl. Deputy Commissioner shall issue notice upon the petitioner as well as to the respondent No. 1 and give them an opportunity of hearing and also to produce any relevant materials that they may desire to produce to substantiate their respective claims. The aforesaid exercise be preferably carried out within six months from the receipt of the certified copy of this order. The writ petition is decided in the above manner. Interim order passed earlier stands vacated.