Sant Ram vs Jitu etc.

R.S. Pathak, C.J.—This is a landowner''s '' second appeal arising out of proceedings u/s 11(1) of the Himachal Pradesh Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act, 1953.

The Respondents applied u/s 11(1) of the Act for the grant of proprietary rights in four bighas of land. The application was opposed by the landowner on the ground that he had no other means of livelihood. The Compensation Officer dismissed the application. On appeal by the Applicants the order of the Compensation Officer was set aside by the learned District Judge and the tenants were granted proprietary rights on payment of compensation. And now this second appeal.

The sole question before the Court is whether the Appellant-landowner can be said to have some other means of livelihood after losing the land in dispute. The learned District Judge took into account the pension received by the Appellant and the circumstance that 32 bighas of land belonged to the Appellant. Proceeding on the assumption that the income from the land and the amount of pension was sufficient the learned District Judge held that the Appellant could not be said to be without any other means of livelihood.

When the appeal was taken up for hearing in the first instance it was found necessary to remit two issues to the lower Appellate court. Those issues are:

(1) What is the average income received by Sant Ram from the 32 bighas of land of which he is a proprietor in possession?

(2) Whether, having regard to his circumstances and responsibilities, the income so received by Sant Ram is sufficient as a means of livelihood?

The learned District Judge has returned a finding that the average income from 32 bighas of land is Rs. 145 per year and after taking into account the income per year on account of pension and net income of the land measuring 9 bighas 3 biswas, which is said to have been transferred earlier by the Appellant to his niece, the total annual income was about Rs. 925, which amount was not sufficient for the livelihood of the Appellant and his wife. It has been urged by learned Counsel for the Respondents that Section 11(2) speaks of the means of livelihood of the landlord only and not of his wife, and therefore the learned District Judge has erred in considering whether Rs. 925 per annum would be sufficient for the [livelihood of the Appellant and his wife. The submission, in my opinion is without force. Section 11(2) must be (Considered in the context of Section 11(1). It is a proviso to that sub-section. When Section 11(2) declares that Section 11(1) will not apply to a case where the landlord has no other means of livelihood it must necessarily imply that the actual or the possible income of the landlord from other means is not sufficient for himself and those who are dependent on him. The legislature could hot have intended that Section 11(2) should be concerned only with the livelihood of the landlord to the exclusion of those who are dependent on him. In this connection it may be noted that it was never the case of the Respondents at any stage before the Compensation Officer or before the district Judge that the Appellant''s wife was also possessed of some means of livelihood. Learned Counsel for the Respondents has urged that besides the 32 bighas of land the Appellant also owns buffaloes and three oxen. It has not been shown by learned Counsel what is the income which the Appellant derives from the cattle. I am not satisfied that the findings of the learned District Judge that the Appellant has no other means of livelihood is incorrect.

Learned Counsel for the Respondents also urges that the circumstance that the Appellant could transfer 9 bighas 3 biswas of land to his niece indicates that he has sufficient means of livelihood. What were the circumstances in which the transfer was made has not been disclosed. It is possible that when the Appellant transferred 9 bighas 3 biswas of land to his niece he had in mind that he would continue in possession of the land in dispute in the present case and that that land would be sufficient for him alongwith other property possessed by him for his livelihood. This submission, therefore, has no force and must be rejected.

The appeal is allowed. The judgment and order of the learned District Judge dated December 24, 1969, are set aside and the application of the Respondents for grant of proprietary rights is dismissed. The Appellant is entitled to his costs which I assess at Rs. 150.