Himachal Pradesh High Court
Murli Ram & Ors vs State Of H.P. & Ors on 5 August, 2016
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No. 7550 of 2010.
Reserved on 26.07.2016
Date of Decision:05.08.2016
.
______________________________________________________
Murli Ram & Ors. .........Petitioners.
Versus
State of H.P. & Ors. ..........Respondents.
Coram
of
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting1?
For the petitioners:
rt Ms. Megha Gautam,
Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. Rupinder Singh Thakur,
Additional Advocate
General, with Mr. Rajat
Chauhan, Law Officer, for
respondents No. 5 to 8.
Mr. Amit Jamwal, Advocate,
vice counsel for respondents
No. 5 to 8.
Sandeep Sharma, J.
By way of present petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has invoked extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court and has prayed for :-
1 Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? Yes.::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:58:42 :::HCHP 2
i) A writ in the nature of certiorari may kindly be issued and the impugned orders dated 27.8.2010 (Annexure P-7) alongwith Annexures .
P-1, P-2 and P-3 may kindly be quashed and set aside and the order dated 13.6.2006 passed by the respondent No. 2 (Annexure P-4) may kindly be upheld in the interest of justice and fair play.
of
ii) The record pertaining to this case may kindly be called for, for the kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court.
rt
iii) That the writ petition may kindly be allowed with cost.
iv) That any other reliefs, which Hon'ble Court deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.
2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present petition are that respondents No. 5 to 8 filed an application for resumption of land under H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act").
Record further suggests that application was allowed by Land Reforms Officer, Baijnath on 20.05.2002 directing therein ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:58:42 :::HCHP 3 the present petitioners to return land measuring 0-12-91 hectares to the private respondents.
.
3. Present petitioners, being aggrieved with the aforesaid order dated 20.05.2002, passed by the Land Reforms Officer, Baijnath, preferred an appeal before the Collector/ADM, Kangra, who on the basis of grounds taken in of the appeal, dismissed the appeal and upheld the order passed by the Land Reforms Officer, Baijnath.
4. rt The present petitioners feeling dis-satisfied and aggrieved with the aforesaid dismissal of appeal by the Collector / ADM, Kangra at Dharamshala preferred an appeal bearing No.297 of 2003 before Divisional Commissioner, Kangra Division. Divisional Commissioner, Kangra Division vide order dated 13.03.2006 accepted the appeal preferred on behalf of the present petitioners and quashed and set aside the order dated 5.12.2001 and 20.5.2002 passed by Land Reforms Officer and order dated 11.06.2003 passed by Collector/ADM Kangra.
5. Respondents No. 5 to 8 laid challenge to the aforesaid order dated 13.03.2006 passed by Divisional ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:58:42 :::HCHP 4 Commissioner, Kangra by way of Revision Petitioner under Section 114 (3), H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1974, .
specifically challenging therein the order dated 13.03.2006 passed in Appeal No. 297 of 2003. Financial Commissioner, H.P., Camp at Dharamshala taking cognizance of the averments contained in Revision Petitioner preferred on of behalf of respondents No. 5 to 8, allowed the revision petition and set aside the order dated 13.03.2006 passed by rt Divisional Commissioner, Kangra Division, as a result whereof order passed by Land Reforms Officer dated 20.5.2002 and Collector/ADM, Kangra dated 11.06.2003 were upheld.
6. Present petitioners by way of present petition has laid challenge to the aforesaid order dated 13.03.2006 passed by Financial Commissioner (Appeal) on the ground that same is not sustainable in eyes of law as the same is not based upon the correct appreciations of the documentary evidence produced on record.
7. Ms. Megha Gautam, counsel representing the petitioner, vehemently argued that the bare perusal of the impugned order passed by learned Financial Commissioner ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:58:42 :::HCHP 5 clearly suggest that the same is not based upon the correct appreciation of the documentary evidence available on .
record, rather Financial Commissioner while deciding revision petition preferred on behalf of respondents No. 5 to 8 has acted in hot-haste manner and passed impugned order without any application of mind. During arguments having of been made by Ms. Megha Gautam, she made this Court to travel through the impugned order dated 13.03.2006 passed rt by learned Financial Commissioner to demonstrate that though learned Financial Commissioner has taken note of the complete sequence of events leading to filing of revision petition but no findings, if any, have been rendered towards the actual controversy in the matter. Ms. Gautam forcefully contended that the learned Financial Commissioner merely set aside the order of the Divisional Commissioner on the ground that an amendment has been made in clause (i) of sub-rule 2 of Rule 21 of the H.P. Land Reforms Rules, 1975, whereby application for resumption under Section 104 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act could be filed up to 31.12.1975. Ms. Gautam forcefully contended that perusal of ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:58:42 :::HCHP 6 impugned order passed by the Financial Commissioner nowhere suggests that other relevant facts/material were .
ever deliberated/considered by the Financial Commissioner before passing impugned order.
8. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that neither Land Reforms Officer nor Collector (Appeal) and of thereafter Financial Commissioner made any efforts to ascertain the actual controversy of the matter that whether rt any application under For LR-V was ever moved by the predecessor-in-interest of the private respondents or not because the receipt placed on record by the respondents to claim that LR-V application was filed by predecessor-in-
interest bears no date and serial number and as such authorities below have fallen in grave error in relying heavily on the receipt produced on behalf of the respondents.
9. Ms. Gautam strenuously argued that LR-V form is required to be filled in duplicate in terms of Rule 21 of the Act and both the copies are not kept in one office and as such Land Reforms Officer, Baijnath has falled in error while relying on the averments contained in the application filed on ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:58:42 :::HCHP 7 behalf of respondents No. 5 to 8 stating therein that predecessor-in-interest had moved an application alongwith .
LR-V form for resumption of land prior to 31.12.1975.
10. To substantiate the aforesaid contention, Ms. Gautam invited the attention of this Court to the impugned orders dated 05.12.2001 and 20.5.2012 passed by Land of Reforms Officer, Baijnath, on the application for resumption of land given by respondents No. 5 to 8. Ms. Gautam rt contended that if orders are read, in its entirety, it nowhere discloses, that any efforts whatsoever, were made by the Land Reforms Officer, Baijnath to ascertain whether application, if any, alongwith LR-V for resumption of land was filed by the predecessor-in-interest of respondents No. 5 to 8.
Ms. Gautam also invited the attention of the Court to order dated 5.12.2001 passed by Land Revenue Officer, wherein Land Revenue Officer on the basis of receipt produced on record by the respondents allowed the present respondents No. 5 to 8 to file LR-V form afresh. It is also contended on behalf of the petitioner that before passing order dated 5.12.2001 and 20.5.2002 it was incumbent upon the Land ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:58:42 :::HCHP 8 Reforms Officer concerned to initiate inquiry and verify whether any such application alongwith LR-V form was ever .
filed by the predecessor-in-interest of respondents No. 5 to 8 but at no point of time such inquiry was conducted, rather merely on the basis of receipt produced on behalf of respondents, LRO allowed them to file LR-V application, of which was ultimately registered as Application No. 1983 LRBT dated 2.11.1999. As per the petitioners, before passing the rt aforesaid orders allowing respondents to file LR-V application on the basis of old receipt, no proper order was made by Land Reforms Officer to the Halqua Patwari to prepare the details of the land held by the land owners during the years 1972 to 1975. Even no affidavit regarding land by the landlord was obtained by the LRO from the landlord. She also invited the attention of this Court to sub Rule 1, Rule 24 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Rules, 1975, wherein notice as per form LR-V was required to be served upon the affected person regarding filling up LR-V form to resume the land by the landlord by calling objections within 10 days time. As per petitioners if it is presumed that landlord had ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:58:42 :::HCHP 9 filled LR-V form prior to 31.12.1975, then in all eventuality Land Reforms Officer would have certainly served the notice to .
the present petitioner in the form of LR-V in terms of sub rule 1 of Rule 24 of H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Rules, 1975. The petitioners also contended that respondents have no where placed on record the duplicate copy of notice, if any, which of was sent under sub rule 1 of Rule 24. Petitioner also contended that form LR-VII always remain in the office of rt Land Reforms Officer and as such record was required to be summoned by the Land Reform Officers before passing any order to fill the LR-V Form.
11. Moreover, at no point of time, Land Reforms Officer called for Register, wherein necessary entries are made with regard to submissions of LR-V form by the landlords for resumption of land. While concluding her arguments, Ms. Megha Gautam forcefully contended that the receipt which was heavily relied upon by the Land Revenue Officer vide order dated 5.12.2001 allowing respondents No. 5 to 8 to file fresh LR-V application, nowhere bears date and serial number as such same could not be ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:58:42 :::HCHP 10 relied upon in the absence of some authentic proof.
Petitioner also contended that for resumption of land, if any, .
only one LR-V form is required to be filled up, wherein complete details is required to be furnished and as such version put-forth on behalf of respondent No. 5 could not be believed at all by Land Reforms Officer, Baijnath that their of predecessor-in-interest Jagdish Chand had filed two applications alongwith LR-V form for resumption of land. As rt per the petitioners, the very purpose of filing one application LR-V form is to ensure that no landlord by misrepresenting of material facts resumes more land than the limit prescribed under sub-rule 2(1) of 104 H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act.
12. Shri Rupinder Singh Thakur, Addl. Advocate General, duly assisted by Shri Rajat Chauhan, Law Officer representing respondents No. 1 to 4 supported the impugned order passed by Revenue Authorities. Shri Rupinder Thakur vehemently argued that there is no illegality and infirmity, whatsoever in the impugned order passed by Financial Commissioner, H.P. and the same is based upon the correct ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:58:42 :::HCHP 11 appreciation of the evidence adduced on record by the parties as well as rule in vogue. Mr. Thakur, strenuously .
argued that order dated 13.3.2006 passed by Divisional Commissioner, kangra has been rightly set aside by Financial Commissioner (Appeal), State of H.P., camp at Dharamshala, specifically holding that date for submission of application of under sub rule 1 of Rule 22 of H.P. Tenancy Act, 1975 was extended up to 31st December, 1975 and as such same rt deserves to be upheld. Mr. Thakur forcefully contended that vide notification dated 15.12.1975 an amendment was carried out in clause (i) of sub-rule 2 of Rule 21 of the H.P. Land Reforms Rules, 1975, whereby date for submission of application in term of aforesaid rules was extended up to 31st December, 1975 and as such no fault, if any, can be found with the findings of the Financial Commissioner. Mr. Thakur contended that its stand duly proved on record that predecessor-in-interest of respondent Nos. 5 to 8 had filled LR-V form on 1.12.1975 i.e. well within the prescribed period i.e. 31.12.1975 as such no fault, if any, can be found with impugned order passed by Land Reforms Officer, further ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:58:42 :::HCHP 12 upheld by the collector/ADM and Financial Commissioner.
In the aforesaid background he prayed for dismissal of the .
present petition.
13. Shri Amit Jamwal, counsel representing respondents No. 5 to 8 also supported the impugned order passed by learned Financial Commissioner. Mr. Jamwal, of vehemently argued that it stands duly proved on record that predecessor-in-interest respondents No. 5 to 8 had filed LR-V rt form on 1.12.1975 well within the stipulated time. Mr. Jamwal also stated that since time was extended upto 31st December, 1975, plea, if any of delay is not available to the petitioner and as such same was rightly rejected by the Courts below. Mr. Jamwal also refuted the submissions having been made on behalf of petitioners, wherein, it was stated that while passing order dated 5.12.2001, no inquiry whatsoever was conducted by Land Reforms Officer while accepting application on behalf of respondents No. 5 to 8 for filing fresh LR-V form for resumption of land. Mr. Jamwal forcefully contended that at no point of time any challenge was laid to order dated 5.12.2001 and thereafter order dated ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:58:42 :::HCHP 13 20.5.2002 passed by Land Reforms Officer, by the present petitioner, as such they cannot be allowed to rake up this .
issue at this stage. During arguments having been made by him, he invited the attention of this Court to order dated 20.5.2002 passed by Land Reforms Officer, Baijnath to demonstrate that necessary notices were issued to both the of parties and inquiry was conducted and thereafter ascertaining the correctness of the claim put-forth on behalf rt of respondents No. 5 to 8, necessary permission was allowed to the respondent to resume land measuring 0-12-91 especially in terms of Section 104 of H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 and Rule 1975. Mr. Jamwal while concluding his arguments strenuously argued that there are no legal grounds which can be made basis for laying challenge, if any, to the impugned order passed by the Land Reforms Officer, further upheld by the Collector/ADM Kangra and Financial Commissioner (Appeal) State of H.P.
14. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the records.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:58:42 :::HCHP 1415. Before proceeding to decide the instant case on merits, it would be profitable to reproduce relevant .
provisions of law in the present Case.
Section 104 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972.
"104. Right of tenant other than occupancy tenant to acquire interests of landowner-(l) Notwithstanding of anything to contrary contained in any law, contract, custom or usage for the time being in force, on and from the commencement of this Act, if the whole of the land of rt the landowner is under non-occupancy tenants, and if such· a landowner has not exercised the right of resumption of tenancy land at any time since January 26,1955, under any law as in force:-
(i) such a landowner shall be entitled to resume before the date to be notified by the State Government in the Official Gazette and in the manner prescribed, either one and a half acres of irrigated land or three acres of un-irrigated land under tenancy from one' or more than one tenants for his personal cultivation and the right, title and interest (including contingent interest, if any) of the tenant or tenants, as the case may be, therefrom shall stand extinguished free from ail encumbrances created by the tenant or tenants to that extent:
Provided that if the tenant has taken loan from the State Government, a co-operative society or a bank for the improvement of tenancy land which the ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:58:42 :::HCHP 15 landowner has resumed under clause (i) or (ii) and has used such loan for the improvement of land, then the landowner shall be liable to repay the .
outstanding amount of such loan and to the extent actually used for said purpose and interest thereon to the state government or to 'the cooperative society or a bank as the case may be, proportionate to the improved land resumed by of him:
Provided further that the landowner shall not be entitled to resume from a tenant more than one half rt of the tenancy land;
(ii) in case the landowner holds less than one and a half acres of irrigated land or three acres un-
irrigated land in personal cultivation, he shall be entitled to resume tenancy land only to make up the land under his personal cultivation to the extent of one and a half acres of irrigated land, or three acres of un-irrigated land, as the case may be, subject to the other conditions laid down in this section;
(iii) the right, title and interest in the rest of the tenancy land of the landowner, who is entitled to resume land under clause (i) and (ii), shall vest in the tenant free from all encumbrances with effect from the date to be notified by the State Government in the Official Gazette:
(iv) in case the land under the tenancy is partly irrigated and partly un-irrigated and the landowner ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:58:42 :::HCHP 16 intends to resume land of both these classes, he shall be entitled to do so in the ratio and manner to be prescribed:
.
(v) in the event of any dispute between the landowner and the tenant with regard to the selection of the land for resumption, the first right of selection of land shall be that of the tenant who may exercise his right in the prescribed manner and of before the date to be notified by the State. Government in this respect in the Official Gazette:
(vi) in case the tenant fails to exercise his right of rt selection of land by the date notified under clause
(v), the land Reforms Officer shall determine his share after giving the parties an opportunity of being heard. In such a case also, the tenant shall be given the first choice to select the land.
(2) Where the landowner does not cultivate the land resumed under sub-section (1) personally within one year from taking possession thereof, then such land shall vest in the State Government on payment of an amount at the rate of ninety-six times the land revenue plus rates and cesses and such land shall be disposed of by the State Government in such manner as may be prescribed. In such an event the first right to get such land shall be that of the tenant from whom the land was resumed by the land owner.
(3) All rights, title and interest (including a contingent interest, if any) of a landowner other than a landowner entitled to resume land under sub-section (I), shall be ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:58:42 :::HCHP 17 extinguished and all such rights, title and interest shall with effect from the date to be notified by the State Government in the Official Gazette vest in the tenant free .
from all encumbrances:
Provided that if a tenancy is created after the commencement of this Act, the provision of this sub-
section shall apply immediately after the creation of such tenancy.
of (4) Whenever a dispute arises whether a person cultivating the land of a landowner, is a tenant or not, the burden of proving that such a person is not a tenant of the rt landowner shall be on the latter.
(5) The landowner whose rights, title and interest are extinguished under this section, shall be entitled to receive an amount at the rate of ninety six times the land revenue plus rates and cesses payable either in lump-sum or in such number of instalments not exceeding ten during a period not exceeding five years as may be prescribed:
Provided that if the tenant makes a default in the payment of any instalment of the amount the same shall be recoverable as an arrear of land revenue:
Provided further if the land for which the amount is to be paid under this section is subject to a mortgage debt from a bank, the mortgage debt will be the first charge on the amount payable for such land;
Provided also that the tenant shall not be liable to pay the amount to the landowner, for the acquisition of ownership rights in the tenancy land which is equal in area to that of his tenancy land resumed by the landowner ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:58:42 :::HCHP 18 under clauses (l) and (ii)) and the extinguishment of rights, title and interest of the tenant in the land resumed by the landowner shall be deemed to be the amount therefor.
.
(6) Save as otherwise provided in section 114, every decision of the Land Reforms Officer, under this section shall be binding on all persons claiming an interest in a holding notwithstanding the fact that any such person has not appeared or participated in the proceedings before of the Land Reforms Officer or any other revenue authority. (7) The provisions of the foregoing sub-section shall apply to evacuee land as defined in the Administration of rt Evacuee Property Act. 1950, (31 of 1950), to composite property as defined in the Evacuee interest (Separation) Act, 1951, (65 of 1951), or the property vested in the Central Government under section 12 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, (44 of 1954), with effect from such date as the State Government may by notification in the Official Gazette specify.
(8) Save as otherwise provided in sub-section (9) nothing contained in sub-section (1) to (6) shall apply to a tenancy of a landowner during the period mentioned for each category of such landowners in sub-section 9 who-
(a) is a minor or unmarried woman, or if married, divorced or separated from husband or widow; or
(b) is permanently incapable of cultivating land by reason of any physical or mental infirmity; or
(c) is a serving member of the Armed Forces; or ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:58:42 :::HCHP 19
(d) is the father of the person who is serving in the Armed Forces upto the extent of inheritable share of such a member of the Armed Forces on the date of .
his joining the Armed Forces to be declared by his father in the prescribed manner.
(9) In the case of landowners mentioned in clauses (a) to
(d) of sub-section (8), the provisions of sub-section (l) to (6) shall not apply:
of
(a) in case of a minor during his minority and in case of other persons mentioned in clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (8) during their life time; rt
(b) in case of persons mentioned in clauses (c) and
(d) of sub-section (8), during the period of their service in the Armed Forces subject to resumption of land by such persons to the extent mentioned in first proviso to clauses (d) and (dd) of sub-section (1) of section 34.
provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply to such land which is either owned by or is vested in the Government under any law, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, and is leased out to any person."
Rules 21, 22 & 24 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Rules, 1975.
"21. Application for resumption of land by the landowner under section 104.- (1) A landowner who intends to resume land for his personal cultivation under Section 104 shall himself or through an authorized person submit an ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:58:42 :::HCHP 20 application in Form LRV in duplicate to the Land Reforms Officer in whose jurisdiction the land is situated. In filling up the Form the landowner shall be assisted by the Patwari .
concerned.
(2) The period for submission of application under sub-rule (1) above is:-
(i) for the landowners other than those mentioned in sub-
Section (8) of section 104 (Upto thirty first December, of 1975);
(ii) for the minors within 6 months from the date of attainment of majority;
rt
(iii) for members of Armed Forces mentioned in clauses (c) and (d) of sub-section (8) of section 104 within 3 years from the date on which they cease to be the members of the Armed Forces.
22. Manner of selection of land for resumption - The Land Reforms Officer shall issue receipt of the Form LRV received by him under sub-rule (1) to the landowner in Form LRVI. If the land of the landowners is with more than one tenant from whom he intends to resume land under the provisions of section 104, he shall select the land for resumption from the tenant holding the largest area of tenancy land and then from the tenants who hold lesser tenancy land in descending order. The landowners who hold the tenancy land jointly, they shall resume the land with respect to their shares keeping in view the principles of consolidation of holdings.
24. Procedure for dealing with applications for resumption
-(1) On the receipt of the application under rule 21, the ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:58:42 :::HCHP 21 Land Reforms Officer shall issue a 10 days notice in Form LRVII to the parties asking them to be present before him on the date and place (within patwar circle) to be .
mentioned in the notice. On the date so fixed the Land Reforms Officer will hear the parties and if the selection of the land made by the landowner under rule 22 is mutually agreed upon by the parties, the Land Reforms officer shall pass an order about the extinguishment of the rights of the of tenant in such land. He shall further order that the possession of the land be given to the landowner from the date to be specified in the order. At the same time rt regarding the remaining land of such tenant or tenants the Land Reforms Officer shall confer proprietary rights on such tenant or tenants, as the case may be."
16. Conjoint reading of pleadings available on record as well as submission having been made on behalf of respective parties clearly suggests that vide Application No. 1983 LRBT T of 2.11.1999, respondents No. 5 to 8 prayed before Land Reforms Officer, Baijnath for permission to fill up fresh LR-V form on the basis of receipt issued to their predecessor-in-interest under Rule 22 alongwith form LR-V duly filled in by him on 1.12.1975. It also emerges from the record that taking cognizance of aforesaid application accompanied by receipt issued under Rule 22 form LR-VI, ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:58:42 :::HCHP 22 Land Revenue Officer vide order dated 5.12.2001 allowed respondents to furnish LR-V form but while analyzing the .
submissions having been made by the counsel representing the parties as well as pleadings available on record, this Court was unable to lay its hands to any document led on record by the respondent suggestive of the fact that before of passing order dated 5.12.2001, Land Reforms Officer, at any point of time, issued notices to the present respondents rt intimating therein that application dated 2.11.1999 has been received on behalf of land owners for submitting LR-V form on the basis of receipt issued under Rule 22, form LR-VI to their predecessor-in-interest at the time of submitting LR forms on 1.12.1975. Though, careful perusal of the record suggest that after passing order dated 5.12.2001, when permission was granted by the Land Reforms Officer to the respondents to fill in LR-V form, notices were issued to present respondents at the time of deciding Application No. 1983 LRBT of 2.11.1999 wherein respondents were held entitled to resume 0-12-91 land in terms of Section 104 of H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 and Rules, 1975. But as has been ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:58:42 :::HCHP 23 observed, there is no document on record suggestive of the fact that before passing order dated 5th December, 2001, .
Land Reforms Officer had issued communication to the present petitioners (tenants) seeking their objections, if any, to the aforesaid application for filing LR form on the basis of receipt given to their predecessor-in-interest on 1.12.1975 at of the time of filing LR-V form.
17. Apart from above, since this Court was unable rt to find any document on record suggestive of the fact that prior to passing of order dated 5.12.2001, notices were ever issued to the petitioners. It really finds it difficult to upheld the order dated 5.12.2001 passed by Land Reforms Officer, Baijnath, accepting therein the prayer on behalf of respondents No. 5 to 8 to allow them to file fresh LR form that too on the basis of receipt issued on 1.12.1975. Had Land Reforms Officer issued notice to the present petitioners before making order dated 5.12.2001, he would have got some assistance as well as records, if any, from the petitioners, while deciding application No. 1983 LRBT, 2.9.1999. But record nowhere suggests that any efforts were ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:58:42 :::HCHP 24 made by the authorities concerned to ascertain the genuineness and correctness of the claim put-forth on behalf .
of respondents No. 5 to 8.
18. Bare perusal of order dated 20.5.2002 suggests that after issuance of notice to the parties, spot inquiry was conducted and respondents No. 5 to 8 were held entitled to of resume land measuring 0-12-91 in terms of Section 104, H.P. Tenancy Land Act6, 1972 and Rules, 1975. Though order rt dated 20.5.2002 finds mention of some inquiry and statement of both the parties but no details, whatsoever with regard to inquiry, if any, and statements made by parties have been incorporated in order dated 20.5.2002 and as such it cannot be concluded that procedure prescribed for resumption of land in terms of Section 104 was strictly adhered to by the Land Reforms Officer while allowing Application No. 1983 LRBT dated 2.11.1999. Interestingly, Land Reforms Officer has nowhere dealt with the issue of delay in maintaining the Application dated 2.11.1999, wherein specific prayer was made to allow respondents to file LR-V application for resumption of land on the basis of the receipt which was ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:58:42 :::HCHP 25 allegedly issued to their predecessor-in-interest on 1.12.1975.
No efforts whatsoever, have been made by Land Reforms .
Officer at any stage to ascertain that for which part of land predecessor-in-interest of the respondents No. 5 to 8 had filed LR-V form against the aforesaid receipt dated 1.12.1975 issued in terms of Rules 22. It is an admitted case of the of respondents that their predecessor in-interest had filed two applications for resumption of land and out of which one rt was decided by Land Reforms Officer on 14.12.1976. But record nowhere suggest that any attempt was made by Land Reforms Officer to ascertain that which of two applications filed by predecessor of respondents No. 5 to 8 was allowed because as per respondents their predecessor-
in-interest had submitted an application for filing LR-V for land at Mohal Shitla Devi, whereas perusal of receipt placed on record, nowhere suggests that same was filed qua the land situated in Mohal Shitla Devi and as such it is not understood on what basis Land Reforms Officer concluded that predecessor-in-interest of respondents No. 5 to 8 had submitted application dated 1.12.1975 for resumption of land ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:58:42 :::HCHP 26 in Mohal Shitla Devi. Respondents have not placed on record any document showing that another application .
allegedly filed by predecessor-in-interest for resumption of land in some other Mohal was allowed and to what extent they were allowed to resume the land from the possession of the tenants of
19. This Court is of the view that there was no occasion, whatsoever for the Land Reforms Officer to pass rt order dated 5.12.2001 as well as 20.5.2002 merely on the basis of application made on behalf of respondents No. 5 to 8 in the absence of explanation for delay between 1.12.1975 to 2.11.1999. Records nowhere suggest that while making aforesaid application dated 2.11.1999 any explanation was rendered on behalf of respondents stating therein the reason for not raking up the claim on the basis of receipt allegedly issued to their predecessor-in-interest on 1.12.1975 while submitting the form LR-V for resumption of land. Since petitioner was aware that their predecessor-in-interest had filled an application on 1.12.1975, it was incumbent upon him to locate the same and take it to the logical end but in the ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:58:42 :::HCHP 27 present case suddenly vide application dated 2.11.1999 respondents made a prayer before Land Reforms Officer, .
Baijnath for allowing them to file fresh application alognwith LR form for resumption of land on the basis of receipt, which was allegedly issued on 1.12.1975 to their predecessor-in-
interest. Land Reforms Officer before passing order dated of 5.12.2001 should have called for explanation from the respondents for delay in maintaining application dated rt 2.11.1999 and should have restrained itself from passing order dated 5.12.2001 merely on the basis of averments if any, contained in application dated 2.11.1999. It emerges from the records that respondents No. 5 to 8 remained silent for almost 16 years after submission of LR-V form by their predecessor-in-interest on 1.12.1975 and suddenly on 2.11.1999 moved an application that too without detailing therein the reason for delay and as such this Court is of the view that impugned order dated 5.12.2001 passed by Land Reforms Officer, Baijnath is not legal, rather the same has been passed without making proper inquiry into the matter and as such same cannot be allowed to sustain.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:58:42 :::HCHP 2820. Apart from above, none of the aforesaid authorities examined the issue of filing two LR-V forms by the .
predecessor-in-interest of the respondents because there is no provision as such in the Land Tenancy Act, which provides for filing of two application by one land owner for resumption of land and there is no explanation, whatsoever on record to of justify the filing of two applications by one land owner for resumption of land. None of the authorities except Divisional rt Commissioner, kangra dealt with aforesaid issue of filing two applications. Perusal of order dated 13.3.2006 passed by Divisional Commissioner, Kangra suggests that Jagdish Chand had filed LR-V form for resumption of land in Mohal Paprola which was decided dated 14.12.1976. Bare perusal of Rule 22 of H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Rules, 1975 clearly suggest that if the land of the landowner is with more than one tenant from whom he intends to resume land under the provisions of section 104 of H.P. Land Tenancy Act, he would select land for resumption from the tenant holding largest area of tenancy land and then from the tenants who hold lesser tenancy land in descending order, meaning ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:58:42 :::HCHP 29 thereby, the land owner can only fill Form LR-V once giving therein details with regard to land he intends to resume .
under provisions of section 104 from the tenants in descending order. Careful perusal of provisions contained in Rule 22, which is reproduced here-in-below clearly suggest that land owner is required to give complete details of land of in one go, which he intends to resume, while submitting LR-V form.
rt Rule 22 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Rules, 1975.
"22. Manner of selection of land for resumption - The Land Reforms Officer shall issue receipt of the Form LRV received by him under sub-rule (1) to the landowner in Form LRVI. If the land of the landowners is with more than one tenant from whom he intends to resume land under the provisions of section 104, he shall select the land for resumption from the tenant holding the largest area of tenancy land and then from the tenants who hold lesser tenancy land in descending order. The landowners who hold the tenancy land jointly, they shall resume the land with respect to their shares keeping in view the principles of consolidation of holdings."
21. Hence, in view of above, it is not understood how Land Reforms Officer, Baijnath proceeded ahead to grant permission to the respondents to fill fresh LR-V form for ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:58:42 :::HCHP 30 resumption of land in Mohal Shitla Devi that too on the basis of receipt given to their predecessor-in-interest, namely, Shri .
Jagdish Chand under Rule 22 on 1.12.1975.
22. Apart from above, there is nothing on record suggestive of the fact that Land Reforms Officer, Baijnath duly complied with provisions of Rule 21 of H.P. Tenancy and of Land Reforms Rules, 1975 while processing application for resumption of land by the land owner under Section 104 of rt the Act. Moreover, this Court after perusing documents available on record is fully satisfied that Land Reforms Officers, Baijnath has completely ignored provisions contained in Sections 21, 22 and 24 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Rules, 1975 and as such action of Land Reforms Officer in granting permission to respondents to fill in fresh LR-
V form deserves to be rectified in accordance with law.
23. Careful perusal of the orders passed by the authorities, while dealing with the appeal and thereafter revision filed before Financial Commissioner (Appeal) State of H.P. nowhere suggest that they had dealt with actual controversy involved in the matter. None of the aforesaid ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:58:42 :::HCHP 31 authorities have made an attempt to examine the validity of basic order dated 5.12.2001 passed by Land Reforms Officer, .
Baijnath, allowing respondents to submit fresh LR-V application on the basis of receipt dated 1.12.1975 and as such have committed grave error while upholding the claim of the respondents No. 5 to 8.
of
24. This Court is of the view that basic order dated 5.12.2001 passed by Land Reforms Officer was not in rt accordance with law, as such any proceedings based on the same cannot be held to be legal. Once it stands duly proved on record that no notice, whatsoever, was issued by the Land Reform Officer to the present petitioner before passing order dated 5.12.2001, same deserves to be quashed and set aside solely on the aforesaid ground.
25. Apart from above, as has been observed in the earlier part of the judgment, that there is no record suggestive of the facts available on record that before passing order dated 5.12.2001 Land Reforms Officer made any attempt to ascertain that whether predecessor-in-
interest of respondents No. 5 to 8 had furnished LR-V form on ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:58:42 :::HCHP 32 1.12.1975 for resumption of land situated Mohal Shitla Devi or not. Hence, this Court is of the view that since order dated .
5.12.2001 passed by Land Reforms Officer is not valid, subsequent orders i.e. 20.05.2002 passed by the Land Reforms Officer on the application filed by respondents cannot be allowed to sustain.
of
26. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid discussions, the present petition is allowed and impugned rt order dated 27.08.2010 (Annexure P-7), 5.12.2001 (Annexure P-1) and 20.05.2002 (Annexure P-2) passed by Financial Commissioner and Land Reforms Officer, Baijnath are quashed and set aside.
27. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
(Sandeep Sharma), Judge.
August 5, 2016 sanjeev ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:58:42 :::HCHP