Taro Devi and Others vs Financial Commissioner (Appeals) and Others

Surjit Singh, J.

1.Petitioners in this case, who are the legal representatives of late Shri Chuian Ram, are aggrieved by order dated 30.8.2004, Annexure P-2, of Collector, as also the order dated 29.7.2005, of the Financial Commissioner, whereby their revision petition, against the aforesaid order of Collector, had been dismissed. So, they have approached this Court, by means of present petition, under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, for reversing the aforesaid orders and restoring the order, dated 6.1.2003, Annexure P-3, passed by Land Reforms Officer, u/s 104(1) of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 (hereafter referred to as the Act), read with Rule 24 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Rules, 1975 (hereafter referred to as the Rules).

Relevant facts may be stated thus. Chuian, the predecessor of the Petitioners, and several other persons, were recorded as tenants, under Respondent No. 2 Asha Devi, one Smt. Krishna Devi, one Kamla and one Nanki. On coming into force of the Act and after the framing of the Rules, in the year 1975, Form LR-V, purporting to have been signed by all the landowners, was submitted to the Land Reforms Officer for resumption of land, as per their entitlement. Notices were issued to the tenants, including Chuian, the predecessor of the Petitioners. Thereafter, order of resumption of some of the land with the tenants, was passed in favour of landowners on 25.2.1977.

In the year 1991, Chuian filed an appeal before the Collector, challenging the aforesaid order, dated 25.2.1977. He alleged that he had never been issued a notice of Form LR V, purportedly submitted by the landowners. He stated that he came to know about the said order, a few days prior to the filing of the appeal. An application for condonation of delay was also moved. Delay was condoned and it was held that Chuian had not been served and, therefore, the aforesaid order, dated 25.2.1977, did not bind him. It was, therefore, set aside, as against him. An appeal was carried against that order by the landowners to the Divisional Commissioner. That appeal had been allowed. Revision, filed before the Financial Commissioner by Chuian, against the order of Divisional Commissioner, was allowed. Then the landowners came to this Court, by means of a petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. That petition was disposed of upholding the order of Collector, remanding the case to the Land Reforms Officer, as far as Chuian was concerned.

Land Reforms Officer, after the remand, passed order dated 6.1.2003, holding that only one of the landowners, named Kamla, had submitted Form LR V, for resumption and that other landowners, had not signed that Form. Consequently, order of resumption in favour of said Kamla alone, was passed. Landowners were aggrieved by that order and they filed appeal before the Collector. Collector allowed the appeal. Petitioners then went in revision to Financial Commissioner. Financial Commissioner has dismissed the revision petition. So, they have come to this Court, by means of the present writ petition, seeking reversal of orders of Collector and Financial Commissioner and restoration of order of Land Reforms Officer, dated 6.1.2003.

I have heard the counsel for the parties and gone through the record.

Original record, maintained by the Land Reforms Officer, has also been summoned. Collector and Financial Commissioner have given concurrent finding, that Form LR v. had been filled in, by all the landowners. Form is available on the original record of Land Reforms Officer. Purported signatures/ thumb impressions of some of the landowners are smeared with ink. It is because of this smearing that the Land Reforms Officer concluded vide order, dated 6.1.2003, that the Form was not signed or thumb impressed, by all the landowners. Collector, while reversing the Land Reforms Officer''s finding, has observed that before filing of appeal by Chuian in the year 1991, challenging the initial order of 25.2.1977, another tenant, by the name of Belu Ram, had also challenged the order dated 25.2.1977 and that in connection with that appeal also, record of the Land Reforms Officer, had been summoned, but at that time, purported thumb impressions and signatures of other landowners, were not ink smudged or smeared with ink. Though, this finding is based on the presumption that had the thumb impressions/ signatures been smeared with ink, an observation, to that effect, would have appeared the order, passed in the appeal of said Belu Ram, I see no reason to reverse this finding of the Collector. Reason is that presumption drawn by the Collector, is not perverse.

Financial Commissioner has also upheld the aforesaid observation of the Collector. Therefore, there is no ground for interfering with the findings of the Collector and the Financial Commissioner that Form LR V, had been filled in, by all the landowners.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that separate forms were required to be filled in, by each of the landowners in duplicate, as per requirement of Rule 21. have gone through Rule 21. The Rule, nowhere, provides that where landowners are in plurality, separate forms are required to be filled, by each one of them.

Another submission, made on behalf of the Petitioner, is that married daughters are not entitled to resume land. In this context, she has referred to provisions of Sub-section (8) and (9) of Section 104 of the Act , which are reproduced below:

(8) Save as otherwise provided in Sub-section (9), nothing contained in Sub-section (1) to (6) shall apply to a tenancy of a landowner during the period mentioned for each category of such landowners in Sub-Section 9 who.-

(a) is a minor or unmarried woman, or if married, divorced or separated from husband or widow, or

(b) is permanently incapable of cultivating land by reason of any physical or mental infirmity; or

(c) is a serving member of the Armed Forces; or

(d) is the father of the person who is serving in the Armed Forces upto the extent of inheritable share of such a member of the Armed Forces on the date of his joining the Armed Forces, to be declared by his father in the prescribed manner.

(9) In the case of landowners, mentioned in Clauses (a) to (d) of Sub-section (8), the provisions of Sub-section (1) to (6) shall not apply.-

(a) in case of a minor during his minority and in case of other persons mentioned in Clauses (a) and (b) of Sub-section (8) during the life time;

(b) in case of persons mentioned in Clauses (c) and (d) of Sub-section (8), during the period of their service in the Armed Forces subject to resumption of land by such persons to the extent mentioned in first proviso to Clauses (d) and (dd) of Sub-section (1) of Section 34. Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply to such land which is either owned by or is vested in the Government under any law, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, and is leased out to any person.

According to learned Counsel, landowners, in this case, being women, their case is covered by Clause (a) of Sub-section (8) of Section 104 of the Act, as reproduced hereinabove. Argument is without any force. A bare reading of Clause (a) of Sub-section (8) and Sub-section (9) of Section 104 of the Act, makes it clear, that operation of Sub-sections (1) to (6) of Section 104, is suspended during the life time of those married women, who are divorced, or separated from husband or become widows. In the present case, only one of the four landowners, namely Nanki was a widow at the time, when Form LR v. was filled in and the Collector has not allowed resumption in her favour, vide his order, dated 30.8.2004, copy Annexure P-2. This very order has been affirmed by the Financial Commissioner, in appeal.

Lastly, it has been submitted by counsel for the Petitioner that Chuian had not been given the option to chose land and that he did not agree for the land, chosen by landowners for resumtion, as per Form LR V. From the record, I find that no option was given to Chuian. Under Rule 24 of the Rules, when there is no mutual agreement between the landowners and the tenant, with respect to the land, sought to be resumed by the landowners, the tenant has the option to retain the land of his choice.

In the present case, no option having been given to Chuian, when the Collector reversed the order of Land Reforms Officer, vide his order dated 30.8.2004, it is ordered that successors of Chuian, shall be given the option by the Land Reforms Officer, to select the land which they want to retain and the rest of the land shall be allowed to be resumed by the landowners. I have been told that Chuian and his successors have already disposed of the land, which remained with them, after the resumption of the land shown in Form LR V. If that is so, Petitioners shall not be entitled to chose the land, to be retained by them, in accordance with the aforesaid direction. Writ petition is disposed of.