35/5/ annually as rent and Rs.
The District Judge held that the respondent was ,the tenant of the Union and that the Act applied to the said lands as also to the Union.
Mahasu, had numberjurisdiction to grant it.
that the relationship between the respondent and the Union was number that of landlord and tenant, that the Union being the paramount owner companyld number be characterised as landlord qua the respondent.
The Compensation Officer held that the respondent was a tenant, there was numberimpediment in granting proprietary Tights to him and allowed once again the respondents application.
Both the Compensation Officer and the District Judge having held on the strength of the Jamabandhi that the respondent was the occupancy tenant in respect of the said lands, the only questions raised in the Second Appeal were 1 that the Act did number bind the Union or the State Government and 2 that the respondents application under s. 11 companyld number lie against the Union in respect of lands owned by it.
76.40 np.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated January 12, 1963 of the Judicial Commissioners Court.
Ganapathy Iyer, R. N. Sachthey and S. P. Nayar, for the appellant.
2nd Appeal No.
The Union of India filed this appeal after obtaining certificate under Art.
2 1960 3 S.C.R. 755.
15 of 1961.
that a number of trees stood on the said lands, that the respondent was merely a lessee of the said lands which were a forest area, that the entries in the revenue record in respect of the said lands were incorrect and companyld number be relied on in an application under section 11 and companysequently the Compensation Officer.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
that he was cultivating the said lands, that he was paying Rs.
Himachal Pradesh in Civil Misc.
four issues, viz.,
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Shelat, J. The Himachal Pradesh State legislature passed the Himachal Pradesh Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act 1953 hereinafter referred to as the Act on June 17, 1953 and the Act was brought into force with effect from January 26, 1955.
957 of 1964.
23/8/ as annual land revenue and other rates and cesses assessed on the said lands and that he was willing to pay companypensation as provided by the Act.
On June 4, 1959 the respondent made an application under s. II of the Act for acquiring proprietary rights in the lands set out therein claiming to be the cultivating tenant of those lands and produced a companyy of Jamabandhi in support of his claim.
The Union filed a Second Appeal before the Judicial Commissioner challenging the companyrectness of the District Judges said order.
R. Prem and R. Thiagarajan, for the respondent.
Whether there were trees on the said lands, whetherthe lands formed part of the forest whether the respondent was a tenant in respect of the said lands and whether there was any impediment in the way of granting proprietary rights to him .
He stated that he was the tenant of the Union of India in respect of the said lands.
That Act was itself then challenged in Jadab Singh v. Himachal Pradesh Administration 2 but the challenge was rejected and the Act since then remains on the statute book as a valid piece of legislation.
The Compensation Officer held, that the said area was number a forest area, that there were numbertrees on the said lands as alleged and that since the respondent was mentioned as an occupancy tenant in the Jamabandhi he was entitled to proprietary rights in the said lands on his paying companypensation which he fixed at Rs.
the Compensation Officer raised 1 1959 Supp.
The validity of the Act was thereafter successfully impugned cf.
The Parliament then passed the Validating Act, 56 of 1958.
1 S.C.R. 160.
The appeal by the Union against the said order before the District Judge failed.
