LexUNION OF INDIA versus JUBBI AND DUNIA, ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
447
UNION OF INDIA
v.
JUBBI AND DUNIA, ETC.
September 5, 1967
[J. C. SHAH, S. M. SIKRI AND J. M. SHELAT, JJ.]
The Himachal Pradesh Abolition of Big Landed Estates and
Land Reforms Act (15 of 1954}-If applicable to State as landlord.
The Himachal Pradesh Abolition of Big Landed Estates and
Land Reforms Ad, 1953, Jays down a scheme for the abolition of
proprietary rights of landowners: (1) under s. 11 there would be a
direct transfer of the rights of a landowner from the landowner to
C the occupancy tenant: (2) under s. 15, in respect of lands situate in
an area specified by Government, there would be a transfer to the
State Government, the tenants of such lands becoming the tenants
of the Government; and (3) under s. 27, in the case of large holdings
the ownership would be first transferred to the State Government
and thereafter by the State Government in favour of the tenant.
The respondent made an application under s. l1 of the Act for
acquiring proprietary rights in certain lands as he was the occu-
D pancy tenant of those lands, the Union of India being the land-
owner.
On the question whether the Act was intended to affect land
owned or held by the Union or State Government,
HELo: There is nothing in the provisions of the Act suggesting,
expressly or by necessary implication that the Act v.'89 not applic-
able to the State, or any distinction between lands owned and held
E by citizens and lands owned and held by the State. [454C]
The object of the Act was to abolish big landed estates and
alleviate the conditions of occupancy tenants by abolishi'IS the pro-
prietary rights of landowners in them and vesting such rights in the
tenants. If discrimination between the State and the citizen in
the matter of the application of the Act is made it would result in
the anomaly that whereas occupancy tenants of lands owned by
p citizens would have the benefit of such a beneficent legislation,
occupancy tenants of lands owned and held by the State would not
get such benefit. An intention to bring about such a discrimina-
tion cannot be attributed to the legislature whose avowed object
was to do away, in the interest of social and economic justice land-
lordism in the State. [454-D-G]
·
'
Superintendent and Legal
Remembrancer v. CoTPOration of
G Calcutta, [1967] 2 S.C.R. 170, followed.
Civn:. APPELLATE JURISDICTION:
Civil Appeal No. 957 of
1964.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated January 12 1963
of the Judicial Commissioner's Court, Himachal Pradesh i~ Civil
B Misc. 2nd Appeal No. 15 of 1961.
R. Ganapathy Iyer, R. N. Sachthey and S. P .. Nayar, for the
appellant
D. R. Prem and R. Thiagarajan, for the respondent.
448
Slll'llEJIJii OOUllT llliiPOBTS
[1968] l s.c.a.
The· Judgment of the Court was delivered by
A.
Slaelllt, 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 Janu-
ary 26, 1955. The validity of the Act was thereafter successfully
impugned (cf. Shri Vinod Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh)('). B
The Parliament then passed the Validating Act, 56 of 1958. That
·
Act was itself then challenged in ladab Singh v. Himachal Pra-
desh Administration(') but the challenge was rejected and the Act
·since then remains on the statute book as a valid piece of legis-
lation.
On June 4, 1959 the respondent made an application under
s. 11 of the Act for acquiring proprietary rights in the lands set out C
therein claiming to be the ·cultivating tenant of those lands and
produced a copy of lamabandhi in support of his claim. He
stated that he was the tenant of the Union of India in respect of
the said lands, that he was cultivating the said lands, that he was
paying Rs. 35/5/- annually as rent and Rs. 23/8/- as annual land
revenue and other rates and cesses assessed on the said lands and D·
that he was willing to pay compensation as provided by the Act.
On November 26, 1959 the Forest Department on behalf of the
Union filed objections alleging that the application was incompe-
tent, that the said lands formed part of the protected· forest, that
the relationship between the respondent and the Union was not
that of landlord and tenant, that the Union being the paramount :s·
owner could not be characterised as landlord qua the respondent,
that a number of trees stood on the sExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.