Back
1997 Supreme(HP) 239
High Court Of Himachal Pradesh
R.L.KHURANA
BALDEV SINGH - Appellant
Versus
JHANDU - Respondent
Regular Second Appeal No. 466 of 1989
Decided On : 06/12/1997
For the appellant(s) :Bhupender Gupta, Advocate. For the respondent(s):Kuldip Singh, Advocate, for respondents I to
3.
A sub-tenant is not entitled to acquire proprietary rights under section 27(4) of the H.P. Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act, 1953.
Headnote:
LAND REFORMS - TENANCY RIGHTS - SUB-TENANT - PROPRIETARY RIGHTS - H.P. BIG LANDED ESTATES AND LAND REFORMS ACT, 1953 - SECTION 27(4) - INTERPRETATION - A SUB-TENANT IS NOT ENTITLED TO ACQUIRE PROPRIETARY RIGHTS UNDER SECTION 27(4) OF THE ACT.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff's father, Mangta, was a sub-tenant of the land in dispute. After his death, the plaintiff and proforma defendants inherited the tenancy rights. In 1966, the defendants fraudulently procured false entries of tenancy in their favor. The plaintiff filed a suit for possession of the land, which was dismissed by the trial court and the appellate court.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that a sub-tenant is not entitled to acquire proprietary rights under section 27(4) of the Act. The court relied on the ratio laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in Smt. Dev Lata v. Alam etc., ILR (1975) H.P. 450, which held that the words "such tenant who cultivates such land" in section 27(4) do not include a sub-tenant.
Issues: Whether a sub-tenant is entitled to acquire proprietary rights under section 27(4) of the H.P. Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act, 1953.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the words "such tenant who cultivates such land" in section 27(4) of the Act do not include a sub-tenant. The court reasoned that the purpose of section 27 is to transfer the rights of landowners to tenants who cultivate the land, and that a sub-tenant is not a tenant within the meaning of the Act.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the plaintiff's appeal.
R.L. Khurana, J.— This is the plaintiffs regular second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 29-8-1989 of the learned Additional District Judge, Nahan, affirming the judgment and decree dated 26-4-1989 of the learned Sub-Judge, 1st Class (2), Paonta Sahib.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the present case are these. One Mangta, father of the plaintiff and proforma defendants No. 4 and 5 was the tenant in respect of land measuring 1 bigha 15 biswas comprising of Khasra No. 414/1 of village Shampur Gorkhuwala, Tehsil Paonta Sahib, hereinafter referred to as the land in dispute The said Mangta died sometime in the year 1957-38. His tenancy qua the land in dispute came to be inherited by the plaintiff and performa defendants No. 4 and 5, in equal shares under the owner Bhupender Singh. The land in dispute came to be vested in the State under section 27 of the H.P. Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act, 1953 (for short, the Act) At the time of death of the above named Mangta, the plaintiff and proforma defendants No 4 and 5 were minors. Taking undue advantage of their minority, the defendants 1 to 3 ia connivance with the revenue field staff in 1966 got themselves recorded as tenants of the land in dispute by getting the names of the plaintiff and proforma defendants No. 4 and 5 deleted, Inspite of such change in the revenue entries, the plaintiff arid proforma defendants continued to remain in possession of the land in dispute till April, 1986, when they came to be forcibly dispossessed therefrom A suit for possession of the land in dispute accordingly came to be filed by the plaintiff on.
3. Defendants 1 to 5 while resisting the suit denied the tenancy of Mangta. It was pleaded that their father Rod a was i a possession of the land in dispute under the owner Shri Bhupender Singh The revenue entries in favour of Mangta and thereafter the plaintiff and proforma defendants were wrong, which came to be corrected. They also denied the minority of the plaintiff and proforma defendants at the relevant time.
4. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned trial Court :
1. Whether Sh. Mangta, father of the plaintiff and proforma defendants was in possession of the suit land as tenant, as alleged ? OPP
2. If issue No.1 is proved, whether after the death of said Mangta tenancy was inherited by the plaintiff and proforma defendants in equal share as alleged ? OPP
3. Whether the defendants No. 1 to 3 forcibly dis-possessed the plaintiff and proforma defendants from the suit land in the year April, 1986, as alleged ? OPP
4. Whether in the year 1966, the defendants No. 1 to 3, in collusion with Patwari Halqa, taking un-due advantage of the minority of plaintiff, illegally and fraudulently procured false entries of tenancy in respect of the suit land in their favour ? OPP
5. Whether the entries in revenue record in favour of defendants No. 1 to 3 are illegal and are not binding upon the plaintiff and proforma defendant ? OPP
6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover possession of the suit land ? OPP
7. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form ? OPP
8. Whether the suit is barred by limitation ? OPD
9. Whether the plaintiff has got no cause of action to file the present suit ? OPD
10. Whether the defendants No. 1 to 3 are coming ia possession of the suit land as tenant as alleged, if so its effect ? OPD
11. Relief.
5. The learned trial Court answered issues No.1 to 6 in the negative and issues No 7 to 10 in the affirmative. Consequent upon such findings, the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 26-4-1989.
6. On an appeal having been carried before the learned Additional District Judge by the plaintiff, the findings of the learned trial Court were affirmed on all the issues. Resultantly, the appeal was dismissed on 29-8-1989.
7. Feeling aggrieved by and being dissatisfied with the findings of the learned Courts below, the plaintiff has come up before this court
