Keshavanand etc. vs Budhu etc.

R.S. Pathak, C.J.—This is a landowners second appeal arising out of proceedings u/s 11 of the Himachal Pradesh Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act.

The tenants applied for the acquisition of proprietary rights u/s 11(1) of the Act. The application was allowed by the Compensation Officer. The landowners filed an appeal before the learned District Judge. During the hearing of the appeal the landowners urged that some of them being minors having no other source of livelihood were entitled to the benefit of Section 11(2) of the Act. The learned District Judge found that the Compensation Officer had not given due regard to this plea of the'' minors, and he remanded the case to the Compensation Officer for fresh consideration of their plea. As regards the defence of the remaining landowners, he dismissed the appeal.

In this second appeal by the landowners, it is urged that the learned District Judge erred in dismissing the appeal so far as the landowners who were majors were concerned, and that he should have considered the point that in case it was found by the Compensation Officer on remand that the minor landowners were entitled to the benefit of Section 11(2) of the Act the entire application of the tenants made u/s 11(1) of the Act would have to be dismissed, inasmuch as the tenancy granted by the entire body of landowners to the tenants in a single indivisible tenancy. Reference is made to Paras Ram v. Bhuru I.L.R (1973) .HP 31. It appears that having regard to the law laid down by this Court in that case, the learned District Judge erred in allowing part only of the appeal [before him and dismissing the rest. In case it is found on remand by the Compensation Officer that some of the landowners are minors and are entitled to the benefit of Section 11(2) of the Act and further that the tenancy is a single indivisible tenancy the application of the tenants must be dismissed. The two parts of the case go together and cannot be separated. It will be for the Compensation Officer to apply his mind afresh to these two questions. It may be made clear that inasmuch as the only ground pressed before the learned District Judge was that the minor landowners were entitled to the benefit of Section 11(2) of the Act, it will not be open to the landowners to press any other ground before the Compensation Officer.

The appeal is allowed, and the order of the learned District Judge is modified insofar that the entire case is remanded to the Compensation Officer for disposal in accordance with law in the light of the observations mentioned above. There is no order as to costs.