The jurisdiction of Civil Courts is not barred regarding disputes or matters with respect to which an application might be made or a proceeding might be had under section 62 of the Himachal Pradesh Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act, 1959, if such application is not filed within one year of dispossession.

( 1 ) THIS appeal has been placed before us pursuant to the order made by S. N. Shankar J on lbth October 1967 and we are called upon to answer the following question.-

"whether a Civil suit filed by a tenant dispossessed withoat bis consent from his tenancy or any part thereof is barred having regard to the provisions of Himachal Pradesh Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act, 1959 ? the re ference was necessiatated because of an apparent conflict between a Full Bench decision of the Punjab High Court in Bhag Singh v. Jawhar Singh which had overruled an earlier decision of that Court and a decision of the Judicial Commissioner, Himachal Pradesh, in Musadi v Smt. Ganpatu.

( 2 ) THE facts so far as necessary for understanding the controvensy may now be stated. Bhutu, the husband of Smt. Balesru, was a non-occupancy tenant of the land in question. Defendant No 1shri Chubaru was the owner landlord of the said land. When Bhuta was ejected from his tenancy, he applied to the Assistant Collector First Grade, for the restoration of possession of the tenancy under the Himachal Pradesh Tenants Rights and Restoration) Act which application was allowed on 31st July, 1954. In pursuance of the orders of the Assistant Collector First Grade, Bhutu was put back in possession of the land on 9th September 1954, but three days thereafter, he was again dispossess by defendant No. 1. Bhutu again applied for the execution of the order dated 31st July, 1954 and was again put in possession on 13th January, 1956, but it appears that later the Assistant Collector First Grade held that second execution was not according to law because the order having once been executed, the same could not be executed second time. It was in these circumstances that Bhutu s widow Smt. Balesru instituted the suit out of which the present second appeal has arisen.

( 3 ) THE defendants denied that Bhutu was the tenant of the land in suit or that he was ever put into possession of the said land. It was further denied that the defendants were in illegal possession thereof. In fact, they pleaded that Bhutu had voluntarily given up cultivation of the land in question and the defendants were, in the circumstances, in lawful possession thereof. Several preliminary objections were also taken, including the objection questioning the jurisdiction of the civil Courts to try the suit Indeed it is this objection which falls for adjudication by us.

( 4 ) THE learned District Judge, in agreement with the Court of first instance, came to the conclusion that after the expiry of one year of dispossession, the present suit in a civil Court was competent and was not hit by the provisions of the Himachal Pradash Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act (hereinafter called the Act ). The learned District Judge, it may be pointed out, placed reliance for his decision on certain decisions of the Lahore High Court, especially the decision reported as Buru v. Niadar and two decisions of the Punjab High Court reported as Parmanand v. Rakha and Ram Sarup v. Budh Ram .

( 5 ) WHEN the second appeal came up for hearing before the learned Judge, his attention was drawn to the recent decision by five Judges of the Punjab High Court in Bhag Singh s case, and as the learned Judge was inclined to agree with this decision, and as he was not impressed by the decision of the Judical Commissioner, the question as reproduced above was formulated for decision by us.

( 6 ) WE do not consider it necessary to go into the correctness or otherwise of the recent decision of the Punjab High Court in Bhag Singh s case, because in our opinion, the scheme of the Punjab Tenancy Act, with wjich that Court was concerned, is different from that of the Act in so far as the present controversy goes. It may, however, be pointed out that out of the five Judges constituting the Full Bench of the Punjab High Court, two Judges were hesitant in agreeing with the view adopted by the other three Judges,