Gohada Vs. Shri Dutt - Court Judgment

D.B. Lal, J.

1. This second appeal preferred under Section 104 of the Himachal Pradesh Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act, 1953 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act), has been directed against the decision of the District Judge, Mahasu, in a petition under Sec. 11 of the Act for the acquisition on payment of compensation, the right, title and interest of the land-owner by the petitioner who is a tenant in land measuring 1-16-5 bighas, comprising in Khasra Nos. 1042 and 1043 situate in village Behna, Tehsil Sadar, Mandi, whereby, confirming the decision of the compensation Officer the District Judge has dismissed the petition.

2. Gohada appeared in Court and filed the petition under Section 11 of the Act, alleging, that Shri Dutt or Ram Dutt is his land-owner of the disputed land and that he was willing to pay compensation for acquisition of the landowner's right, title and interest. The respondent Shri Dutt contested, inter alia, that he was suffering from physical disability and is incapable of earning his livelihood and therefore he was entitled to the advantage of Clause (2) ofSection 11 of the Act and tenant could not acquire his right, title and interest in the land.

3. The learned Compensation Officer found that the respondent had failing eye sight and considering his income, it was difficult for him to earn his livelihood. It was further held that the respondent was incapable of earning his livelihood because of this physical disability. Accordingly he dismissed the petition. Gohada went in first appeal before the learned District Judge, but could not succeed and his petition was again dismissed. Against that decision, he has preferred this second appeal.

4. It is manifest, the Courts below have given concurrent findings on a question of fact. This Court would be reluctant to interfere with this finding of fact, unless anything perverse, or manifestly wrong is inferred, or it is stated that an incorrect inference has been drawn from the facts already proved. A careful perusal of evidence indicates that certain facts were established. The respondent possesses in his self-cultivation about 3 bighas of land. This is so stated by him and is supported by his witness Gan Chand (RW. 4). The jamabandi entry (Ex. PA) also testifies to this fact. The petitioner Gohada (PW. 1), however, stated that the respondent possesses 4 or 5 bighas in his self-cultivation. Be it as it may, the area is hardly sufficient for adequate means of livelihood. According to the petitioner as well as his witness Govardhan (P. W. 3), 4-5 persons are dependant upon the respondent. According to the witnesses, the remaining land which is about 27 bighas belonging to the respondent, is already with other tenants. The respondent and his witnesses stated that the eye sight of the respondent is weak and that he cannot work vigorously. Dr. Radha Krishna (R- W. 2) had examined the respondent and his certificate (Ex. RA) proves that the respondent has poor vision and that he is unfit to earn his livelihood. The doctor further stated that the respondent can only move about with precaution. The respondent is getting pension from military service. According to him, he gets Rupees 61/- per month as pension and a certificate issued by Medical Board which was held in Military Hospital, Lucknow on 28-10-1964, indicates that the respondent was invalidated from Military service because of defective eye sight. According to Dr. Radha Krishna (R. W. 2), the respondent is unable to run any independent shop. The petitioner also affirmed that the respondent is no longer running a shop because of this disability. It is evident, the respondent is not blind, although he has failing eye sight. Similarly, he can move about with precaution. This is all what the petitioner and his witnesses have stated. From this, it cannot be inferred that he is a person of normal eye sight.

There can be no dispute that he suffers from physical disability and the only point urged by the learned counsel for the appellant is that he is not incapable of earning his livelihood. The overall picture of the income which is accruing to the respondent and the expenditure which he has to incur, exhibits that he is hardly left with adequate means of livelihood, in case he is deprived of his self-cultivation. The phrase 'incapable of earning his livelihood' cannot be narrowed down so as to refer to a situation where one is not even able to earn subsistence of life. It is apparent, a reasonable provision for food, raiment and shelter is required for every person. Therefore to say that a man can just exist is not to suggest that he is earning his livelihood within the meaning of Clause (2) of Section 11 of the Act. One does not exist but also lives and for such living, some income, howsoever meagre, is needed more than what is required for keeping the body and soul together. In this view of the matter, if the respondent is deprived of his self-cultivation, e is hardly left with means of livelihood and his physical disability has further made him incapable of earning such livelihood. The Courts below, therefore, were right in deciding against the petitioner. The respondent cannot be deprived of his self-cultivation.

5. The result is that I find no reason to interfere with the decision of the learned District Judge and this appeal is dismissed. However, no order is made as to costs.