Dagu vs Gawainu etc.

R.S. Pathak, C.J.—This is a landowner''s second appeal arising out of proceedings u/s 11 of the Himachal Pradesh Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act, 1953.

The tenants, Gawainu and others, applied u/s 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.

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.

I have gone through the entire record of the case and it seems to me that the learned District Judge is right. Notice was issued by the Compensation Officer on August 27, 1970. The endorsement on the back of the notice by the Process Server is dated September 7, 1970, and states that Dagu had refused to accept service and that, therefore, the notice had been affixed to his house. The oral statement of the Process Server has been recorded on the back of the notice and he has affirmed the contents of his endorsement. There is no reason why he should not be believed. It appears that a fresh notice dated November 12, 1970, was issued by the Compensation Officer to Dagu. It is urged on behalf of Dagu that the time for filing the objection should be taken from the service of the second notice. The contention cannot be accepted. The circumstances show that the second notice was issued under the erroneous impression that the notice originally issued to Dagu had not returned. An earlier entry in the order sheet indicates that the first notice had in fact been served.

Now Rule 4 of the Himachal Pradesh Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Rules 1955, provides that the Compensation Officer shall, after having determined the amount of compensation, publish or cause to be published a notice in form L. R. III for the information of all concerned and give one month''s nonce to the parties to prefer their objections, if any. The statutory rule itself fixes a period for filing objections. The period commences to run from the service of notice on the parties, if a party has already been served with notice, the period for filing objections from the date of service will commence to run. The second notice cannot extend the date. The notice must be taken to have been served on Dagu on September 7, 1970, and all that he had was one month thereafter for filing his objections.

My attention has been drawn to Rule 12 of the Rules mentioned above. Rule 12 declares that the notices required to be served and published under the Act shall be published in the Government Gazette and served in the manner laid down in Sections 21, 22 and 23 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1953, Now Section 21 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act prescribes the mode of service of summons issued by the Revenue Officer. It provides that summons shall, if practicable, be served personally on the person to whom it is addressed or failing him on his recognised agent or an adult male member of his family usually residing with him, and if acceptance of service so made is refused the summons may be served by posting a copy thereof at the usual or last known place of residence of the person to whom it is addressed. It is apparent that the service of notice effected on Dagu on September 7, 1970, satisfies the conditions of Section 21 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act. But, it is contended on behalf of Dagu that Rule 12 applies only in those cases where notices are required to be served by the Act and not notices prescribed by the Rules, Rule 12 refers to notices required to be served "under the Act". The Rules have been made by virtue of powers conferred by the Act. Therefore, what is required by the Rules must be treated in law as required "under the Act".

In my opinion the notice having been served on Dagu on September 7, 1970, the objections filed by him are clearly beyond time and the Compensation Officer was justified in rejecting it on that ground. The order made by the learned District Judge endorsing the order of the Compensation Officer must be upheld.

The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.