Nand Ram vs Raghunandan

R.S. Pathak, C.J.—This and the connected second appeal have been filed by the tenant against the orders of the learned District Judge, Mandi in proceedings for the acquisition by the tenant of proprietary rights u/s 11 of the Himachal Pradesh Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act, 1953.

The appellants in the two cases, Nand Ram and Baria, applied u/s 11(1) of the Himachal Pradesh Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act, 1953 for the grant of proprietary rights in land belonging to the landowner Raghunandan. The landowner invoked the benefit of Section 11(2) of the Act and claimed that he had no other means of livelihood and was a person suffering from a. physical disability and incapable of earning his livelihood. He alleged that he was a petition writer but on account of cataract in the eyes he was unable to work as petition writer. In 1969, when the applications were filed, he was admittedly about 70 years of age. He also asserted that he had two wives and two minor daughters living with him and that his only source of livelihood was the land in dispute and some other land yielding an amount of grain hardly sufficient for maintaining himself and his family. The Compensation Officer found that he was not entitled to the benefit of Section 11(2) of the Act, and allowing the applications he granted proprietary rights to the tenants on payment of compensation. The landowner appealed, and both appeals were allowed by the learned District Judge, Mandi who found that the landowner was entitled to the benefit of Section 11(2) of the Act. Accordingly, he set aside the order of the Compensation Officer in each case and dismissed the applications made by the individual tenants. The tenants now appeal.

It appears from the record that on the date of the applications the landowner was suffering from cataract. The question is whether at the relevant time, that is to say at the time when the applications u/s 11(2) of the Act were filed, it can be said that the landowner was suffering from a physical disability within the contemplation of Section 11(2) of the Act.

The disability must be of a kind whose definite removal within a reasonable period from that point of time cannot be contemplated. It is not disputed that at the relevant time the physical infirmity affecting the landowner''s sight did not permit him to practise his vocation as a petition writer. The landowner here was about 70 years of age at the time, and according to the testimony of Dr. V. N. Gupta it could not be said with any certainty that the removal of the cataract would give him back his normal vision. In re-examination he did state that on removal of the cataract he would be able to read and write, but what he envisaged was a successful operation. It seems clear to me that the landowner must be held to suffer from a physical disability which brought him within Section 11(2) of the Act.

The other question is whether he had no other means of livelihood besides the land in dispute. Now, when Section 11(2) uses the expression "if he has no other means of livelihood" it must necessarily refer to means of livelihood which are sufficient to meet the needs of the landowner. And the needs of the landowner cover not merely his individual needs but extend to those whom he has an obligation to maintain. Besides the land in dispute the landowner drew upon some other land for maintaining himself and his family. There is convincing material on the record that the yield from that land was insufficient by itself for that purpose. It must be held, therefore, that the landowner had not other means of livelihood.

I am in agreement with the findings recorded by the learned District Judge, and would accordingly dismiss the appeals.

This and the connected appeal are dismissed. There is no order as to costs.