Back
2013 Supreme(HP) 964
FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), HIMACHAL PRADESH
Narinder Chauhan, Financial Commissioner
Kundan Lal - Appellant
Versus
State Of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Revenue Petition No. 197 of 2011
Decided On : 22-11-2013
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Yash Pal Sharma, Advocate
For the Respondent:S.P. Garg, D.A., Rahul Gupta, Advocate
The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and applicability of Section 118 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972, particularly in relation to the status of non-agriculturists purchasing land and the impact of relevant amendments to the Act.
Headnote:
Section-118 - H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 - [Section 118] - [Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed Section 118 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972, which prohibits transfer of land to non-agriculturists. The court also referred to the 2nd proviso of Section 118, which addresses the status of non-agriculturists who purchase land under specific clauses. The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of Section 118 and its applicability to the transactions in question.]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a revision petition against the orders of the Divisional Commissioner and District Collector, Kangra, regarding an alleged violation of Section 110 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972. The dispute involved the purchase of agricultural land by non-agriculturists and the jurisdiction of Revenue Courts in the matter.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Revenue Courts based their orders solely on a compromise related to a shop, not agricultural lands, and that the transactions in question occurred prior to relevant amendments to the Act. The court emphasized the applicability of Section 118 and the 2nd proviso in determining the status of non-agriculturists who purchase land.
Issues: The issues involved the jurisdiction of Revenue Courts, the applicability of Section 118 to the disputed transactions, and the status of non-agriculturists purchasing land under specific clauses.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of Section 118 and its 2nd proviso, emphasizing that the transactions in question occurred prior to relevant amendments to the Act and therefore needed to be examined in light of the law prevailing at that time.
Final Decision: The revision was accepted, and the case was remanded back to the District Collector, Kangra, with specific observations regarding the examination of the respondents' status as agriculturists and the applicability of the 2nd proviso of Section 118.
ORDER :
Narinder Chauhan, Financial Commissioner
This revision petition under Section-118 (3-c) of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972, has been filed against the orders, of Divisional Commissioner, Kangra, who in appeal No. 61/2005, vide order dated 30.07.2011, upheld the orders of District Collector Kangra, dated 15.12.2004, vide which no cognizance of an alleged violation of Section 110 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972, was taken against the present respondents.
2. The Ld. Divisional Commissioner, held that District Collector, Kangra, has correctly dismissed the application of the present appellant, on the grounds that a compromise was entered into between the appellant and the respondents before the Hon'ble High Court, and the principles of res-judicata and estoppel are attracted. The case file reveals that Hon'ble High Court in RSA No. 412/1992, vide its order dated, July 10, 1996, directed that the present respondent, who was appellant in the RSA, and was in occupation of a shop in question, was prepared to pay Rs. 60,000/- to the plaintiff/present petitioner for the purchase of the said shop, and directed that the present respondent shall pay to the plaintiff/present petitioner, an amount of Rs. 60,000/- on or before 10th of November, 1996, and the plaintiff/present petitioner shall be bound to get the sale deed registered. Both the parties gave an undertaking before the Hon'ble High Court, to be bound by their statements and also committed to the execution of the said sale deed. Ld. Divisional Commissioner, therefore, held that the matter having been settled in a compromise between the parties before the H.P. High Court, the Revenue Courts did not enjoy jurisdiction in the matter.
3. In the revision petition, the petitioner has made the following grounds:-
(i) That the order of Collector Kangra, dated 15.12.2004, passed on an application dated 9.02.2001 and 11.12.2003, and orders of Divisional Commissioner, Kangra dated 30.07.2011, are contrary to law, facts and merits of the case.
(ii) That the orders of the Hon'ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh, dated 10.07.1996, referred to in the impugned orders have no application in the instant case, as the said orders pertain to a suit for the ejectment of respondent No. 2, from a Gairmumkin shop, which was under his occupation and not qua any agricultural land purchased in Mohal Jassoor and in Mohal Bhalloon, in violation of the basic provisions contained in Section 118 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 (No. 8 of 1974). According to which statute, even a decree of the Court cannot override the provisions of the Statute.
(iii) That the respondents are non-Himachali and non-agriculturist, and they have admitted this fact in the Civil Court in case No 39/ 2003, titled Mandir Bhagwati Devi v. Dharam Paul, and also before Ld. Civil Judge Sr. Division, Nurpur, in case titled Govind Singh Pathania v. Dharma Paul. That they belong to Punjab and do not own any agricultural and other land, house, or shop in Himachal Pradesh, prior to 1978.
(iv) That respondent was only a tenant of a Gairmumkin shop belonging to the petitioner, which shop is situated at Mohal Jassoor, Tehsil Nurpur District Kangra. The petitioner filed a suit for ejectment against the respondent for the shop in the Civil Court at Nurpur. That an appeal being preferred by the respondent against the judgment and decree against him, a compromise was arrived at on account of financial hardship, faced by the petitioner and that the respondent on becoming the owner does not acquire the status of agriculturist, as no dispute qua the agricultural land was pending before the Hon'ble High Court of H.P.
(v) That the respondents in connivance with Revenue Authorities purchased agricultural and vide mutation No. 453 dated 09.06.1981, measuring 13 kanals 13 marlas in Mohal Bhalloon, Mauza Thora Bhalloon as per jamabandi for the year 1978-79. Further, an additional 2 kanal 17 marlas, was again purchased vide
