Full Judgment
Om Prakash, J.
1. This appeal is directed against an appellate order of the learned District Judge, Sirmur, whereby, an appeal, against the order of the learned Compensation Officer Sirmur, was dismissed.
2. Chuhra, the father of the appellants, had made an application, under Section 11 of the Himachal Pradesh Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act, (hereinafter referred to as the Abolition Act), for the acquisition of proprietary rights, in the land, owned by the respondent, on the allegation, that he was a tenant of the land.
3. The application was contested by the respondent on various grounds. The only ground, which is relevant, for the decision of this appeal, was that trees, belonging to the respondent, were standing on the land, and he was entitled to get compensation for those, in addition to the compensation, payable, for the land.
4. Chuhra died during the pendency of the application. The appellants were brought on record as his legal representatives.
5. The learned Compensation Officer, Sirmur, who had heard the application, held that trees, which were owned by the respondent, were standing on the land and he was entitled to gel Rs. 316.20 NP. as compensation, for the trees. The Compensation Officer allowed the application and granted proprietary fights, in the land and the trees, to the appellants, on payment of Rs. 562.50 P as compensation for the land and Rs. 316.20 P. for the trees.
6. Against the decision of the Compensation Officer, directing them to pay compensation for trees, the appellants went up in appeal to the learned District Judge, Sirmur. Their appeal was dismissed. Hence, the present second appeal.
7. The only contention, put forth, in this appeal, was that there is no provision in the Abolition Act authorizing the Compensation Officer to direct the appellants to pay compensation for trees and that the orders of the Compensation Officer and the District Judge, directing the appellants to pay compensation for trees, were without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed. This contention has got force. Under the Abolition Act, a Compensation Officer has jurisdiction to confer proprietary rights, on a tenant, with respect to land and a building, standing thereon, only. Trees standing, on the land, are, obviously, not a building. Neither, such trees are 'land' as defined in Section 2(6) of the Abolition Act, vide Nanku v. Union of India AIR 1964 Him Pra 16. As trees are neither a building nor land, the Compensation Officer has no jurisdiction to grant proprietary rights, to a tenant, in the trees, and ex-hvpothesi to direct a tenant to pay compensation, for the trees. In fact, a Compensation Officer has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the rights of parties, which they might have in the trees, in proceedings, relating to an application, under Section 11 of the Abolition Act. The orders of the Compensation Officer and the District Judge, in the instant case, conferring proprietary rights, in trees, on the appellants, and directing them to pay compensation in respect there of. are without jurisdiction and liable to be set aside.
8. The appeal is allowed and the orders of the Compensation Officer and the District Judge are set aside to the extent to which they confer proprietary rights, in trees, on the appellants and direct them to pay compensation. In respect thereof. In case, the appellants have deposited the amount of Rs. 316.20 P. as compensation, for the trees, they will be entitled to the refund, thereof.
9. Before parting with the case, it appears necessary, to make it clear that the order of this Court will not, adversely, affect the rights of the parties, which they might have, in the trees, independently of the order of the Compensation Officer.
10. In the circumstances of the case, theparties will bear their own costs of this appeal.