Smt. Bimla and Others vs Devia

R.S. Pathak, C.J.—Devia, a tenant, holding land in tenancy under a landowner Tula Ram applied u/s 11 (1) of the Himachal Pradesh Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act, 1953, for the acquisition of the right, title and interest of the landowner. He alleged that the previous landowner was one Bansi Lal and the land had been gifted by him to his son Tula Ram with the object of defeating the object of Section 11 of the Act. Tula Ram, it seems, was lame in both legs and had also lost one arm. He opposed the application filed by Devia, contending that he was suffering from physical disability and that besides the land in question he had no other means of livelihood. He sought the benefit of Section 11(2) of the Act. The Compensation Officer held that the transfer by Bansi Lal infavour of TulaRam was intended to defeat the object of the Act and was void by reason .of Section 68 and, therefore, the plea based on Tula Ram''s disability was irrelevant. Besides that, he found that there was sufficient land to Support Bansi Lall, Tula Ram and the family. Accordingly, he made an order granting proprietary rights to the tenant Devia. Thereafter, Tula Ram died and an appeal against the order of the Compensation Officer was preferred by his widow, daughters and daughter-in-law as Tula Ram''s legal representatives. The learned District Judge has dismissed the appeal. He has affirmed the finding that Tula Ram had sufficient land in his possession and it could not be said that besides the land concerning which Devia had applied he had no other means of livelihood. And now this second appeal.

It is urged by counsel for the Appellants that the finding of the Compensation Officer that the transfer by Bansi Lal in favour of Tula Ram was void is erroneous and that erroneous finding must be taken to have been impliedly affirmed by the learned District Judge. It is said that if the finding that Bansi Lal was the real landowner is accepted, then as the application was made by Devia against Tula Ram, it must fail. It seems to me that the view taken by the Compensation Officer that the transfer is void is erroneous. There is no provision in the Act declaring that a transfer by a landowner is invalid if made with the object of defeating the operation of Section 11(1) of the Act. The reliance placed by the Compensation Officer in this behalf on Section 68 of the Act is completely misconceived. Section 68 is concerned with the transfer of interest of a tenant and not of a landowner. The transfer in favour of Tula Ram must be treated as a valid transaction. A perusal of the order of the learned District Judge shows that he has proceeded on the basis that Tula Ram was the landowner. That, in my opinion, was the correct basis for dealing with the case.

It was next urged by counsel for the Appellants that the learned District Judge should have considered the circumstances of the heirs of Tula Ram with reference to the terms of Section 11(2) of the Act, and in omitting to do so he erred. For the reasons already set out in my judgment in Chuahatali and Ors. v. Bratu M.S.A. No. 12 of 1971 decided by Hon''ble R. S. Pathak, C.J. and D.B. Lal, J. on Sept. 2, 1975. I am of opinion that on the death of Tula Ram the proceeding initiated by Devia''s application u/s 11(1) of the Act became infructuous. There is no dispute that the appeal filed by the legal representatives of Tula Ram before the learned District Judge against the order of the Compensation Officer was a proper appeal and was not barred by time. Consequently, even though Tula Ram died after the order of the Compensation Officer and before the appeal was filed, all that the learned District Judge should have done was to hold that the application filed by Devia had become infrctuous.

Accordingly, this appeal is allowed, the order of the Compensation Officer dated January 28, 1970, and the order of the learned District Judge dated May 15, 1971, are set aside and the application of the Respondent made u/s 11(1) of the Himachal Pradesh Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act, 1953, is dismissed as infructuous. In the circumstances there is no order as to costs.