DAGU Vs. GAWAINU ETC.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a landowner's second appeal arising out of proceedings under Sec. 11 of the Himachal Pradesh Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act, 1953.

(2.) The tenants, Gawainu and others, applied under Sec. 11(1) of the Himachal Pradesh Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act for the grant of proprietary rights in the land, of which the landowners were two brothers, Dagu and Janku. Notice was issued by the Compensation Officer to the landowners. Service of notice was attempted on Dagu on September 7, 1970, but he refused to accept service. The Process Server noted the fact of refusal and affixed a copy of the notice on the residence of Dagu. As regards Janku it was necessary to issue a fresh notice, and on that he accepted service of the notice. Objections were filed by Janku and Dagu on December 10, 1970. The Compensation Officer took the view that while the objection filed by Janku was within time that filed by Dagu was barred by time. Accordingly he rejected the objection filed by Dagu and proceeded to deal with the case concerning Janku on the merits. Against that order Dagu filed an appeal. The appeal has been dismissed by the learned District Judge, Mandi, by his order dated June 18, 1971. Dagu now files this second appeal against that order.

(3.) It is urged on behalf of the Appellant that notice was never served on Dagu and that Dagu had never refused to accept service. It is urged that the report of the Process Server to the contrary is incorrect and the testimony of Gawainu, who was said to be a witness of the service, is the testimony of an interested party and should not be accepted. It is pointed out that in fact a second notice was issued by the Compensation Officer in November, 1970 and if time is computed from the service of that notice it will be found that the objection filed by Dagu is within time.