LexMADAN KISHORE versus MAJOR SUDHIR SEWAL AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 12 S.C.R. 1154 A MADAN KISHORE .,..- ., v. MAJOR SUDHIR SEWAL AND ORS. (Civil Appeal No.7179 of 2001) B SEPTEMBER 2, 2008 [TARUN CHATTERJEE AND HARJIT SINGH BEOI, JJ.] I -. Land Reforms: Himachal Pradesh Abolition of Big Landed Estates and c Reforms Act, 1953 - ss. 11 and 14 - Acquisition of proprietary rights under the·Act - Entitlement of sub-tenant - Held: Sub- tenant is not entitled under the Act to claim proprietary rights _before the Compensation Officer nor a sub-tenant would be entitled to file any application for such conferment of the right D before him. The question which arose for consideration in the ~ present appeal was as to whether a sub-tenant is entitled "' to file an application for conferment of proprietary rights E under the Himachal Pradesh Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Reforms Act, 1953. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD:1.1. On a plain reading and on consideration F of the scheme of the Himachal Pradesh Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Reforms Act, 1953, it would be pellucid that it was only the tenant who could make an f. ~ application under the Act for acquiring proprietary rights in respect of the suit land. The scheme of the Act does not indicate that any right was conferred by the Act on G the sub-tenant to acquire any proprietary rights in respect of the suit land under the Act. A reading of the provisions ,.. made in ss. 11 and 14 of the Act would clearly show that the Legislature has specifically excluded the sub-tenant from making any application for acquiring proprietary H 1154 ... MADAN KISHORE v. MAJOR SUDHIR 1155 SEWAL & ORS. rights under the Act because by using the expression in A ss. 11 and 14 of the Act, namely, "a tenant other than a sub- tenant", would clearly mean that the sub-tenant was specifically excluded from making such application before the Compensation Officer. A sub-tenant is not entitled under the Act to claim proprietary rights before the B Compensation Officer nor a sub-tenant would be entitled to file any application for such conferment of the right before him. [Paras 14, 15] [1163,C-F; 1165,B] 1.2. There is another aspect of the matter. In the present case, the final Court of fact, on consideration of C the evidence, oral and documentary, on record, came to- • the conclusion that the defendant No. 1/appellant could not prove to be a sub-tenant in respect of the suit land. This finding of factwas affirmed by the High Court by the impugned judgment in the second appeal, which cannot D be upset since, no infirmity has been found for which it can be held that such findings are perverse or arbitrary. Therefore, even assuming that a sub-tenant is entitled to make a claim before the Compensation Officer for acquiring proprietary rights in respect of the suit land E under the Act, even then, defendant No. 1/appellant, not -~ . being a sub-tenant, as found by the First Appellate Court and affirmed by the High Court in the· second appeal, could not at all apply for conferment or acquisition of proprietary rights in respect of the suit land under the Act._The High Court was perfectly justified in holding that F the said order of the Compensation Officer was without jurisdiction and that the Compensation Officer was lacking jurisdiction in holding that the defendant No. 1/ appellant could be conferred proprietary rights in respect of the suit land under the Act. [Paras 16, 17, 18] [1165,C- G D; 1165,E-F; 1165,H; 1166,A] Smt. Dev Lata. v. Alam etc. (1975) ILR -40 - approved. Ayudh Raj & Ors. v. Moti S/o Mussadi AIR (1991) SC · 1600 - relied on. H 1156 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2008] 12 S.C.R. A , State of Punjab & Ors. v. Gurdev Singh Ashok Kumar B c AIR (1991) SC 2219; TVijendradas &Anr v. M. Subramanian & Ors. (2007) 8 SCC 751 and A. VPapayya Sastry & Ors. v Govt. of A.P & Ors (2007) 4 SCC 221 - distinguished. Case Law Reference (1975) ILR 40 approved Para .14 AIR (1991) SC 1600 relied on Para 18 AIR (1991) SC 2219 distinguished Para 19°- "' (2001) a sec 151 distinguished Para 21 (2007) 4 sec 221 distinguished Para 21 · CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 7179 of 2001 ·· o From the final Judgment and Order dated 27.6.1997 of the High Court of Judicature of Himachal Pradesh at Shima in Ragular Second Appeal No. 281 of 1998 Shailendra Bhardwaj for the Appellant. E Devendra Singh, Dr. Sushil Balwada and Ghanshyam for the Respond
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.