IMPORTANT POINTS
Vesting of all land including all land not occupied by any building situated in a town, land revenue of which exceeds Rs.125/ year except the land under personal cultivation in the State by virtue of section 27 of Himachal Pradesh Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act, 1953 is automatic.
Upon vesting, respondent could not claim any right, title or interest in the land; much less compensation under the Ceiling Act as well as under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act.
Change of stand is not permissible
Re-litigation is an abuse of process of court.

Headnote:(a) Himachal Pradesh Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act, 1953 – Sections 2 and 27 r/w section 3, Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 – Land including all land not occupied by any building situated in a town, land revenue of which exceeds Rs.125/ year except the land under personal cultivation – Vests in the State Government – Vesting automatic not depending upon payment of compensation – Not confined to the land held under the tenancy right – Land includes all Banjar, Abadi, Gharat, Kalhu, and Gair-Mumkin land – Held, instantly land of respondnet having land revenue of Rs. 155.58 stood vested in the State of Himachal Pradesh. (Para 41, 42, 45)
       (b) Himachal Pradesh Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act, 1953 – Sections 2 and 27 r/w section 3, Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 – In order to avoid rigours of section 27 respondent filing civil suit claiming the land to be Ghasni, Banjar, Abadi, Gharat, Kohlu, and Gair-Mumkin – Thus respondent himself contended that the land was un cultivable – Hence it could not be under his personal cultivation and could not be left out of vesting under the Act 1953 – Upon vesting, respondent could not claim any right, title or interest in the land; much less compensation under the Ceiling Act as well as under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. (Para 47, 48)
       AIR 1960 SC 1008 – Relied upon
       (c) H.P. Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 – Section 11 and 14 – 10,027 bighas 5 Biswas of respondent’s land declared as surplus and compensation of Rs.57,888.80 paid for the land which had already vested under Abolition Act, 1953 – Land also acquired under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Payment of compensation kept in abeyance as title of land was under dispute – Reference court ought to go into question as how the respondent could claim compensation for the land for which he had already received compensation under Ceiling Act – Held, It was not open for respondent to receive compensation again in the land acquisition case. (Para 54)
       (d) Himachal Pradesh Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act, 1953 – Section 2(5) and 27 r/w section 96 and Order XXIII Rule 2 – Respondent filing suit not claiming the land as under personal cultivation – Rather claiming that it was not ‘land’ within meaning of Abolition Act – Trial court holding that the land was ‘land’ under abolition Act and it was not under personal cultivation of respondent – Respondent filing first appeal on ground that as he had received compensation under Ceiling Act, his land having declared surplus, the suit had become infructuous – Now before Supreme Court respondent changing stand that he did not receive compensation under Ceiling Act and so is entitled for compensation under Acquisition Act – Such change of stand, not permissible – Held not entitled to compensation under Acquisition Act. (Para 58)
       (e) Administration of justice – Dictum of ‘fraud vitiates the solemn proceeding’ – Can be raised in any proceeding including under Section 18/30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – No right can be claimed by a fraudster on the ground of technicalities – Supervisory jurisdiction of the court can be exercised in case of error apparent on the face of the record, abuse of process and if the issue goes to the root of the matter – Article 227, Constitution of India – Re-litigation is an abuse of process of court. (Para 63, 66, 72, 73, 76)
       (2003) 8 SCC 319; (2015) 6 SCC 557; (2006) 7 SCC 756; (2005) 6 SCC 149; (2007) 4 SCC 221; (1994) 1 SCC 1; (1998) 3 SCC 573 – Relied upon
       (2002) 3 SCC 705; (2004) 7 SCC 362; (2005) 1 SCC 545; (1995) 2 SCC 326; (1996) 5 SCC 14; (2004) 13 SCC 534; (2008) 8 SCC 744 – Distinguished
       Facts of the case:
       The question involved is whether after the abolition of Jagirs by virtue of the Himachal Pradesh Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act, 1953, the late Jagirdar or his legal representatives could have claimed the compensation on the land acquisition being made particularly when land has vested in the State of Himachal Pradesh, the land was not under the personal cultivation, and particularly when they have received the compensation under the Abolition Act, apart from that had also received the compensation under the provisions of H.P. Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972.
       The facts project how a litigant has filed a slew of litigations one after the other and faced with a situation that it was likely to be dismissed, he would withdraw it; again, file it on new grounds, or having lost it, would withdraw it again at appellate stage, and in the meantime, in different proceedings by playing fraud, getting unjust enrichment by receiving compensation at the expense of public exchequer.
       Finding of the Court:
       The compensation withdrawn by Late Rajinder Singh or his LRs. in the case of land acquisition, in original proceedings or under section 28-A directed to be refunded along with interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum within 3 months from today to the appellants/State, as the case may be, and compliance be reported to the Supreme Court.
       Result: Appeals allowed.

JUDGMENT

ARUN MISHRA, J.

Leave granted.

2. The question involved is whether after the abolition of Jagirs by virtue of the Himachal Pradesh Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as `the Abolition Act'), the late Jagirdar or his legal representatives could have claimed the compensation on the land acquisition being made particularly when land has vested in the State of Himachal Pradesh, the land was not under the personal cultivation, and particularly when they have received the compensation under the Abolition Act, apart from that had also received the compensation under the provisions of H.P. Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "the Ceiling Act").

3. The facts project how a litigant has filed a slew of litigations one after the other and faced with a situation that it was likely to be dismissed, he would withdraw it; again, file it on new grounds, or having lost it, would withdraw it again at appellate stage, and in the meantime, in different proceedings by playing fraud, getting unjust enrichment by receiving compensation at the expense of public exchequer.

4. The facts in the instant case reveal that Late Rajinder Singh, son of erstwhile ruler Late Maharaja Padam Singh was Jagirdar of the land, and thus was recorded as owner of thousands of bighas of land in Tehsil Rampur, Sub-Tehsil Nankhari and Tehsil Rohru of erstwhile Mohasu district which is presently a part of Shimla district and Tehsil Nichhar of district Kinnaur of State of Himachal Pradesh.

5. The land in village `Jhakri' of 393 khasra numbers admeasuring 1011 bighas, 6 Biswas was declared to have vested in the State under section 27 of the Abolition Act and the intermediary Rajinder Singh as per order dated 14.11.1962 was permitted to retain only 64.12 bighas of land which was under his personal cultivation. In Himachal Pradesh, one acre comprises 5 bighas of land. Vide order dated 19.9.1964 passed by the Assistant Collector, the order of vesting was modified to the extent that he was given 13 bighas 12 Biswas of land comprised in Khatauni No.1 out of 14 Khasra numbers, i.e., 14, 122, 125, 142, 143, 165, 212, 238, 241, 288, 423, 494, 511 and 512. Some of the aforesaid survey numbers were unmeasured. However, the fact remains that the total area which was found to be under personal cultivation, was 13 bighas, 12 Biswas.

6. Late Jagirdar Rajinder Singh assailed the order of vesting dated 14.11.1962 by filing W.P. [C] No. 15/1962. Before the Judicial Commissioner who used to hear writ petitions at the relevant time, held that the land which was not under personal cultivation, would not vest in the State unless and until compensation was paid.

7. Pursuant to the order of vesting, the competent authority under the Abolition Act i.e. Compensation Officer, Mahasu, vide order dated 12.4.1966 determined the compensation of Rs. 28,019.45. Since the Zamindar had already received an amount of Rs. 1,703.25 in excess from the tenants who had acquired proprietary rights under section 11 of the Abolition Act, same was deducted from the amount and the amount payable was found to be Rs. 26,316.20 and it was actually paid on 6.5.1966.

8. As against the order passed by the Compensation Officer dated 12.4.1966, the appeal was preferred before the District Judge, Mahasu. The appeal was partly allowed and the direction which was made of deduction of Rs. 1703.25 was set aside and the payment of entire Rs. 28,019.45 was ordered without aforesaid deduction.

9. As against the decision of the Judicial Commissioner dated 14.11.1962, the matter travelled to this Court in C.A. Nos.1186-1191/ 1966. This Court held that vesting under section 27, the right, title and interest of the owner in landholding in case land revenue of the holding exceed Rs. 125 per year, would vest free from all encumbrances in the State Government and the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2018 Supreme(SC) 920

Cases Referred (15)