MANDIR SHIVJI MAHARAJ DARLA Vs. NEGI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a second appeal under Section 104 of the Himachal Pradesh Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act, 1953 (hereinafter to be referred as the Abolition Act), and has been directed against the decision dated 10th October, 1969 of the District Judge. Mahasu.

(2.) Dhumi who has since died and whose legal representatives are Negi and six others, respondents in this Court, applied to the Compensation Officer under Section 11 (1) of the Abolition Act for acquisition on payment of compensation, the right, title and interest of the land-owner whom they described as "Shri Mandir Shivii Maharaj Darla through next friends Jagat Ram, Jagar Nath, Masat Ram, Dittu and Amar Chand Tehsil Arki, Mahasu District." The dispute related to 11-16 bighas area of 25 plots specified in the petition and situate in village Darla of the Tehsil of Arki. The petition was contested by the appellant-landowner on the allegations, that the petitioners were not the tenants, that the land itself could not be defined so as to attract the provision of Section 11 of the Abolition Act, that the temple as such could not be proceeded against because it is not a juridical person; and that the idol being in the position of a minor had no other means of livelihood. The learned Compensation Officer decided all these points in favour of the petitioners and granted the application. However, he removed from the ambit of his order the 'abadi' area of the disputed land over which the temple itself and other buildings appurtenant thereto had existed. The landowner came in appeal before the District Judge, but confined its contentions to only two points, namely, that the temple land-owner is not a juridical person and that the idol is in the position of a minor and had no other means of livelihood and as such the case falls within exemption provided in Clause (2) of Section 11 of the Abolition Act. The District Judge repelled these two contentions and granted the application.

(3.) The land-owner has felt aggrieved of the decision of the learned District Judge and has preferred this second appeal.