JUDGMENT :

JYOTSNA REWAL DUA, J.

1. Because of 'merry-go-rounds' in the revenue Courts spanning over four decades in three rounds of litigation, respondent No. 3, Landowner-an Ex-serviceman, has not been able to resume his land from the appellants-tenants, to which he is entitled under the provisions of Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1974.

2. Facts:-

2(i). The land in question alongwith various other parcels of land was recorded in joint ownership of respondent No. 3 and his brothers, sons of Sh. Piar Singh. A family partition took place, in which the suit land fell to the share of respondent No. 3.

2(ii). Respondent No. 3 joined Indian Army on 08.09.1953. Being in armed forces, he could not cultivate the land himself. Respondent No. 3 inducted Sh. Milkhi Ram, predecessor-in-interest of the present appellants, as tenant over land comprised in Khasra No. 102, measuring 14 kanals 7 marla, in Mohal Kharota and Mehar Singh & Rai Singh, sons of Sh. Ram Ditta as tenants over Khasra No. 1725, measuring 0-21-59 hectares, situated in village Chalwara.

2(iii). Respondent No. 3 instituted a suit under Section 58 of the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 (in short 'Act') against the aforesaid Sh. Milkhi Ram for recovery of rent. The brothers of respondent No. 3 were also impleaded as respondents in the suit. During the pendency of the suit, Milkhi Ram died and his legal heirs, i.e. the present appellants, were brought on record. The contention of respondent No. 3 that he was owner of the suit land in terms of family partition, was supported by his brothers, who were also parties to the case. The suit was decreed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Nurpur, District Kangra in favour of respondent No. 3 (plaintiff therein) on 20.10.1986. This judgment has attained finality.

2(iv). Respondent No. 3 retired from Army on 30.09.1985. On 18.10.1985, he applied for resumption of his land under tenancy. The subsequent litigation history may be noticed in following compartments.

First Round:-

2(iv)(a). The Land Reforms Officer Jawali/Tehsildar, vide his order dated 02.04.1990, allowed the resumption application of respondent No. 3 upto 5 acres of land. He, however, held that under the rules, respondent No. 3/landowner cannot resume more than 50% of the tenancy land from the tenants.

2(iv)(b). The order dated 02.04.1990 passed by the Land Reforms Officer, Jawali, was challenged by respondent No. 3 before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Nurpur, District Kangra. Respondent No. 3 contended that he was entitled to resume the entire land under tenancy. This appeal was dismissed on 20.01.1992.

2(iv)(c). The second appeal filed by respondent No. 3 was accepted by the Divisional Commissioner, Kangra on 18.08.1994. The Divisional Commissioner remanded the case to the Court of Collector, Kangra, holding that the impugned order did not discuss the points raised before the Court.

Second Round:-

2(iv)(d). On remand, the Collector, Kangra, vide order dated 23.07.1997, quashed the order dated 02.04.1990, passed by the Land Reforms Officer. The matter was remanded to the Land Reforms Officer. The Collector directed the Land Reforms Officer to allow the resumption of land from the tenants for self-cultivation by excluding gair mumkin land.

2(iv)(e). The Land Reforms Officer vide order dated 17.04.1999, held that respondent No. 3 was authorized to resume land for self-cultivation upto 5 acres. In all, an area of 0-75-35 hectares was allowed to be resumed by respondent No. 3.

2(iv)(f). The present appellants (tenants) preferred an appeal against the order dated 17.04.1999 to the Collector. The appeal was decided on 24.04.2001. The order of Land Reforms Officer was set aside. The matter was again remanded to the Land Reforms Officer, Jawali for fresh decision after taking into consideration the land, which was already in the ownership of land owner and to complete the shortfall upto the limit of 5 acres for resumption of land.

2(iv)(g). Respondent No. 3 c