MEHAR SINGH Vs. CHUHRU RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a defendants revision petition arising out of a suit for money.

(2.) A suit was instituted in August, 1970. After issues had been framed and some evidence had been recorded, an application was made by the petitioner claiming that he was a landless agricultural labourer" and that in view of section 3 of the Himachal Pradesh Relief of Agricultural Indebteness Act, 1977 the suit should be dismissed. Section 3 of the Act provides that a suit shall abate if it is pending on the appointed day for the recovery of a debt from a debtor of the category defined under the Act. A "debtor," by section 2(e), means a marginal farmer, a landless agricultural labourer or a rural artisan who is in debt. It does not include a small farmer. A land less agricultural labourer is defined in section 2(g) which provides: 2(g). - -"landless agricultural labourer" means a person who does not hold any land and whose principal means of livelihood is manual labour on agricultural land and includes a person who follows any one or more of the following agricultural occupations in the capacity of a labourer on hire or exchange, whether paid in cash, in kind or partly in cash and partly in kind: - (a) farming including cultivation and tillage of soil etc. ; (b) dairy farming ; (c) production, cultivation, growing and harvesting of horticultural commodity; (d) raising of livestock, bees or poultry ; and (e) any practice performed on a farm as incidental to or in con -junction with farm operations (including any forestry or timbering operations) and preparation for market and delivery to storage or to market or to carriage for transportation of farm products." The trial court has taken the view that because admittedly the petitioner is a Defence employee holding a full -time post he cannot be described as a landless agricultural labourer. He has treated the application as frivolous and dismissed it on that ground.

(3.) In this revision petition, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the trial court had no jurisdiction to decide the question whether the petitioner was a landless agricultural labourer, and that the question could be decided only by an officer not below the rank of a Tehsildar duly appointed by the State Government in that behalf. Having regard to section 2(2) of the Act, there can be no doubt that if a question arises whether a person is a landless agricultural labourer the jurisdiction to decide that question belongs exclusively to an officer not below the rank of a Tehsilder duly appointed by the State Government in that behalf. The decision of such officer on the question is final and conclusive, and cannot be called in question in any civil court. But in order to invoke section 2 (2) it must be shown that a question arises. That means, a point which can be said to raise a controversy or debate. If ex facie no question arises, because admittedly between the parties the defendant carries on a vocation which clearly excludes him from the definition of the expression landless agricultural labourer, plainly section 2(2) of the Act cannot be invoked. The statute does not contemplate frivolous or meaningless applications. If references are made under section 2 (2) consequent on such applications the references must be considered as improper. In the present case, the petitioner admits that he is a Defence employee and holds a full -time post. It cannot be said then by any stretch of reasoning that his principal means of livelihood is manual labour on agricultural land or that he is a person who follows any one or more of the agricultural occupations mentioned in section 2(g) of the Act. The trial court is right in holding that the application is frivolous and did not call for a reference under section 2(2) of the Act.