FAO No. 5319 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- FAO No. 5319 of 2009 Date of decision: November 05, 2009 Dharambir ........ Appellant Versus General Public .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Ms Sharmila Sharma, Advocate for the appellant -.- 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Nirmaljit Kaur, J. This is an appeal against the order dated 05.08.2008 passed by the District Judge (Family Court) Bhiwani, dismissing the petition filed by the appellant under section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardian Ship Act, 1956, seeking permission to alienate by way of sale of agricultural land measuring 48 kanals 0 marla, comprised in Khewat No. 448 Khatoni No. 547 to 550, situated within the revenue estate of Village Bamla, Tehsil and district Bhiwani, owned and possessed by minors, namely Amit (son), Priya and Heena (daughters) of the appellant. While challenging the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the FAO No. 5319 of 2009 2 appellant submitted as follows:- i) That after the death of his wife Urmila, appellant lost his job as he could not go to his duty due to great mental shock and depression, as such, is not having any source of income to maintain the minors and to meet out expenses of their education who are school going and appellant is in great need of money. The appellant and the minors are residing at Sultanpur, Tehsil Farook Nagar, District Gurgaon and the land in question is situated at village Bamla, which is at a far off place. Handsome price is being offered of the land of the minors. The appellant has no adverse interest to that of the minors. ii) That the land belonging to the minor is situated at a far away place and it is not possible for the appellant to go to the land for the purposes of agriculture and maintenance, because firstly he is permanent disabled up to 20% and secondly after the death of his wife there is nobody to look after the minors at his back. He also apprehends that some miscreant may encroach the land of minors in his absence, which may caused prejudice to the rights of the minors. Hence, it would be in favour of the minors that the appeal of the appellant be allowed so that he could purchase some other property near the place of his residence/easily approachable for him in the interest and betterment of the minors. I do not find any merit in the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. FAO No. 5319 of 2009 3 On a specific query, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the aforesaid land has come to the share of the minors on account of inheritance due to the death of their mother. The appellant, who is the husband of deceased Urmila, wants to sell off the land. Nothing has been brought to the notice of this Court, which may convince the Court that the appellant shall use the amount so received from the sale of the land for the benefit of the minor, more so, when it as emerged that the appellant has no source of income and is dependent on the land left by his wife in the name of the minors. The District Judge, while dismissing the petition observed as under:- “5. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant and going through the evidence on the file, I am of the confirmed view that no ground is made to allow the appellant Dharambir Singh Chauhan, who is father and thus natural guardian of the minors to alienate the land of the minors namely Amit, Priya and Heena. The land in question is 48 kanals. Some of the land is Nehari, which shows that it has irrigation facility and must be fetching sufficient income. The plea of the appellant that he is an handicapped and can not earn anything does not appeal to the Court. First of all, land in question is cultivable and if appellant is not able to cultivate the land himself he can lease out the same to some other persons. The disability of the appellant is only to the extent of 10% which was at the time when handicapped certificate EX P7 was issued to the petitioner. There was mild restriction in left knee. Thus, it FAO No. 5319 of 2009 4 cannot be said that being handicapped he cannot earn.” The Court is also of the view that a person who is neither able to find employment nor cultivate the land does not aspire confidence and thus cannot be trusted to sell the land of the minors. It will only enable him to live- off the money received from the sale proceeds. The Court apprehends that in the present circumstances, in case the appellant is allowed to sell off the land, there may neither be any land nor any money left by the time the minors grow up. No merit. Dismissed. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge November 05, 2009 mohan