SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1958 Supreme(Raj) 109

Board of Revenue
Kishan Puri—Chairman, Shyamlal—Member
Akbar Khan - Appellant
Versus
Lakhan Singh - Respondents
Case No. 6/Churu of 1957
Decided On : April 04, 1958

Advocates Appeared:
M.M. Tiwari, for Appellant; Dhonkal Singh and Bhagwat Sharan, for Respondents

Headnote:Tenancy Act Sec. 161—Ejectment on grounds valid under any other law but not provided under the Act.

       There is no provision in the Tenancy Act for the ejectment of a tenant or sub-tenant on the ground of determination of lease by forfeiture If sub-tenant is to be ejected then action can be taken against him only if the case is covered by secs. 171, 175, 177 or 180 of the Act. Any ground which may have been a valid ground of ejectment under the Bikaner Tenancy Act or under any other Act in force in any part of the State cannot be regarded as a valid ground effective under the Tenancy Act if it is not to be found in any of the sections referred to above.

This second appeal has been filed by the defendant against the appellate decree of the Divisional Commissioner. Bikaner dated 22.8.57 confirming the decree of the trial court as far as it related to the ejectment of the defendant from the land in dispute but modifying it in respect of the amount of mesne profits—the amount decreed by the trial court was Rs. 108/12/- and the same was reduced to Rs. 65/4/- by the first appellate court.

2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the the record as well. To appreciate the points involved for determination in this second appeal it is essential to refer to certain facts antecedent to the institution of the present suit in point of time. Shri Lakhan Singh Subedar Major Ganga Risala, Bikaner sent an application to the Collector Churu through the Officer Commanding, Ganga Risala on 30th March, 1951 in which it was stated that Lakhan Singh owned the land in dispute—Khasra No. 41 measuring 41 bighas 18 biswas in Patta Kanwari, that the Khatedari of the said field was given to him by the settlement Commissioner, Sader, vide, his decision dated 18.5.45, that the field was in those days cultivated by one Akbar Khan, that Akbar Khan was requested to hand over the field to Lakhan Singh but Akbar Khan totally refused to do so, that the Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance was not applicable to military personnel and hence it was prayed in the application that Akbar Khan should "leave the land with retrospective effect" and possession be handed over to Lakhan Singh. This application was forwarded by the Collector, Churu on 3.4.51, to the Tehsildar Ratangarh for enquiry and, report. The Tehsildar forwarded the papers to the Assistant Collector, Ratangarh on 31.5.51 with the remarks that the application for ejectment court he heard only by the Assistant Collector. The Assistant Collector directed the issue of a notice to Akbar Khan to show cause as to why he should not be ejected from the land in dispute. At first ex parte proceedings were directed against Akbar Khan, but this order was set aside on payment of costs and Akbar Khan was allowed to participate in the proceedings. On 6.10.51 the case was transferred to the court of the Anti-Ejectment Officer, Churu. After recording the evidence of the parties the following order was passed on 2.7.52;—

"Counsel for the parties present. Arguments heard. Lakhan Singh has applied for ejectment of Akbar Khan from the field on the ground that he is a military personnel and hence is not governed by the provisions of the Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance. Akbar Khans contention is that the land in dispute does not belong to Lakhan Singh nor he is a tenant of Lakhan Singh. Lakhan Singh was never in possession of the land. That the land was taken for kasht from Thikana Kanwari. The counsel for the parties agree that Lakhan Singh being a military personnel is not governed by the provisions of the Rajas-than (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance. This is an application for ejectment. For recovery of possession no action can be taken on such summary application. Lakhan Singh should bring regular proceedings in a competent court. The application be rejected."

On 18.3.53 Lakhan Singh brought this suit in the court of the Assistant Collector Ratangarh. It was averred in the plaint that the land in dispute was in the Khatedari of the plaintiff, that the plaintiff held it in muafi from Thikana Kanwari, that the plaintiff was recorded as Khatedar and the defendants as Kashtkar thereof, that the plaintiff being an employee of the military forces was not liable to the provisions of the Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance and hence he applied for ejectment of the defendant, that in the course of those proceedings the defendant denied the Khatedari rights of the plaintiff, that the defendant denied all rights of the plaintiff in the land, that by the adoption of this plea the defendant forfeited his tenancy rights and was reduce


















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top