Union of India (UOI) vs Matha

R.S. Pathak, C.J.—This is a land-owners appeal arising out of proceedings u/s 11 of the Himachal Pradesh Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act.

The Respondent applied u/s 11(1) of the Act for the grant of proprietary rights. The Compensation Officer rejected the application. On appeal by the tenant, the learned District Judge set aside the order of the Compensation Officer and allowed the application. In the result the Respondent was granted proprietary rights on payment of compensation.

In this second appeal by the land-owner, the only question for consideration is whether the land which is the subject of the proceeding is "land" to which Section 11 of the Act applies. Section 2(5) of the Act defines "land" to mean:

"land" means land which is not occupied as the site of any building in a town or village and is occupied or has been let for agricultural purposes or for purposes subservient to agriculture, or for pasture, and includes:

(a) the sites of buildings and other structures on such land,

(b) orchards,

(c) ghasnies.

The Jamabandi (Ex. P.) which relates to the land shows the Appellant as the land-owner while the Respondent is entered "Maurusi", and the land is described as ghasni for which rent is payable. The Compensation Officer took the view that a number of trees stand on the land, and because of their number the land on which they stand cannot be described as "land" for the purposes of the Act. The evidence on the record does not suggest that the number of the trees is so numerous that the land cannot be described as ghasni. Merely because a number of trees stand on the land it cannot necessarily lead to the inference that it is not "land" within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. It is pointed out that the land is comprised in Khasra No. 50 which is situated within a demarcated forest. It has not been established that the mere description of the area as demarcated forest can alter the original nature of the land as existing at the time when the Respondent acquired rights therein. At the time when the Respondent acquired those rights, it was ghasni land and there is no convincing evidence to show that his rights have been abrogated by any subsequent change in the nature of the land. On the contrary, the material on the record indicates that rent is being paid for the tenancy rights in the land. In my opinin, the land is covered by the definition set out in Section 2 (5) of the Act. The learned District Judge is right in holding that it is tenancy land which entitles the Respondent to proprietary rights by virtue of Section 11 of the Act.

The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.

A cross objection has been filed by the Respondent. It is urged that the learned District Judge should have granted proprietary rights in respect of the entire land covered by the application made u/s 11 (1) of the Act. It is pointed out that counsel for the Respondent, who appeared before the Compensation Officer, had no power to abandon the Respondent''s claim in respect of some of the land. Before the Respondent can succeed in his cross objection, it is necessary for him to show that there was no such power in his counsel. The terms on which counsel was engaged have not been placed before me, and accordingly the cross objection must be dismissed.

The cross objection is dismissed but in the circumstances there is no order as to costs.