Ram Pershad vs The Chief Commissioner, Delhi State and Others

Falshaw, C.J.—This is an appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent against the order of a learned Single Judge accepting a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution and setting aside an order of the Chief Commissioner, Delhi, by which he accepted a revision petition filed by one of the present appellants u/s 187 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act of 1954 and setting aside the order of the Revenue Assistant granting bhumidhari rights in the disputed land to the present appellants.

The land in dispute comprises an area of 23 bighas 3 biswas of land situated in the village Jharoda which lies in the part of the State of Delhi to which the Punjab Tenancy Act was applicable. This land had been planted with over 300 fruit trees by the owners Ram Sarup, Om Datt and Priya Datt. Some time before they leased the land to the present appellants for a period of 10 years by a deed registered on the 7th of December, 1948. It was provided in the lease that more fruit trees would be planted by the tenants, but that any such trees would revert to the owners on the cancellation or termination of the lease.

The dispute arose after the Delhi Land Reforms Act, VIII of 1954, came into force on the 20th of July, 1954, the object of which was to provide for modification of the zamindari system so as to create a uniform body of peasant proprietors without intermediaries. According to section 4 of the Act there was in fact only to be one class of tenure-holder, the bhumidhar, and one class of sub-tenure holder, the Asami.

Both parties claimed the status of bhumidhar under the Act and the matter was decided in favour of the owners by the Revenue Assistant by his order dated the 9th of July, 1958. This order was challenged by one of the tenants on behalf of all of them, and the decision was reversed in favour of the tenants by the order of the Chief Commissioner dated the 27th of March, 1959. The learned Single Judge, however, quashed that order thus restoring that of the Revenue Assistant. It may be mentioned that in the writ petition the learned counsel representing the Chief Commissioner intimated to the Court that he was not opposing the petition of the owners.

There is no doubt that the land in dispute constitutes a grove and in section 3(18) of the Act ''proprietor''s groves'' is defined as meaning, "groveland held or occupied by a proprietor as such". Section 11(1)(a) reads-

Subject to the provisions of section 10, the Deputy Commissioner shall declare as Bhumidhars persons holding the following lands, namely:-

(a) Khud Kasht land or a proprietor''s grove in the tracts to which the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887, was applicable or Sir land or Khud Kasht land or a proprietor''s grove in the tracts to which the Agra Tenancy Act, 1901, was applicable.

It was on this basis that the owners have been held to be entitled to Bhumidhari rights in respect of the land in dispute. On the other had reliance was placed on the provisions of section 13(1)(g) which provides for the conferment of Bhumidhari rights on a tenant grove-holder, a term which does not appear to be defined any where in the Act.

On behalf of the appellants it was contended that the definition of ''proprietor''s grove'' set out above meant that the grove alone must be actually and physically possessed and cultivated by the proprietor, but, of that is the case, it is difficult to see why the alternative words were used ''held or occupied by a proprietor as such''. It is clearly intended that there is a distinction between the meaning of the word ''occupied'' and the word ''held'' and the only possible inference appears to be that a proprietor in order to qualify as a grove holder need not be in actual occupation of the grove-land. However, great reliance was placed on the decision of Sulaiman, C.J. and Bennet, J. in Ibn Ali Vs. Emperor, which deals with the question of a grove-holding under the Agra Tenancy Act. It is however, clear from this decision, in which the learned Judges gave separate Judgment, that both of them considered that a tenant''s grove-holding arose only where the land was leased to the tenant for the purpose of planting an orchard, and in my opinion there can be no doubt that the distinction between a proprietor grove-holder and a tenant grove-holder does not depend on who is in occupation of the land on which the grove is planted, but who planted the grove, and in the present case there is no doubt whatever that a grove-was in existence at the time when the tenancy was created even although the lease provided for the planting of additional fruit trees by the tenant.

Our attention has also been drawn to the provisions of section 6 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act which would appear to set at rest any doubts which might be entertained on this point. The relevant portions of section 6 read-

Every person belonging to any of the following classes shall be an Asami and shall have all the rights and be subject to all the liabilities conferred or imposed upon an Asami by or under this Act, namely-

(a) every person who, in the agricultural year immediately before the commencement of this Act, occupied or held land-

(i) as a non-occupancy tenant of a proprietor''s grove;

.................................

This clearly shows that a land-owner can be a proprietor grove-holder even where the grove held is leased to a tenant, and so in the occupation of the tenant, as long as the tenant is a non occupancy tenant. I am therefore of the opinion that the matter was correctly decided by the learned Single Judge and dismiss the appeal with costs.

Harbans Singh, J.

I agree.