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

1971 Supreme(P&H) 7

PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
P.C.Pandit and S.S.Sandhawalia JJ.
Jaisi Ram
Versus
Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab
Letter Patent Appeal No. 299 of 1970,
Decided On : JANUARY 8, 1971

A tenant must be in possession of the same particular piece of land continuously for the statutory period before acquiring proprietary rights therein.

Headnote:

TENANCY - Acquisition of Proprietary Rights - Continuous Possession of Same Land - Interpretation of Relevant Provisions - Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955.

Fact of the Case:

The dispute arose from four writ petitions filed by Jaisi Ram, a landowner, challenging the orders passed by the Financial Commissioner, Punjab, conferring proprietary rights on his tenants under the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955 (the Act). The Financial Commissioner had rejected two of the revision petitions summarily on the ground that the copies of the orders of the Collector and the Prescribed Authority had not been filed along with them. The landowner also contended that he had entered into a compromise with the tenants, who had surrendered their rights under the lease, and that they could not be granted any proprietary rights in the land in their possession.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the Financial Commissioner had erred in rejecting the two revision petitions summarily, as there was no provision in the Act or the rules framed thereunder requiring the filing of such copies with the revision petitions. Regarding the landowner's contention of compromise, the court found that in one case, there was no positive proof of the tenant voluntarily relinquishing the tenancy and surrendering possession of the land to the landowner. However, in the other case, there was evidence of a compromise between the landowner and the tenant, whereby the latter surrendered possession of the entire land to the former. The court held that this surrender of possession by the tenant was sufficient to terminate the tenancy, even though the provisions of Sections 7 and 7-A of the Act were not followed.

Issues: 1. Whether the Financial Commissioner was justified in rejecting the revision petitions summarily for want of copies of the orders of the Collector and the Prescribed Authority? 2. Whether the compromise between the landowner and the tenant, resulting in the surrender of possession of the land by the tenant, was sufficient to terminate the tenancy? 3. Whether the tenant was required to be in possession of the same land or the same area under the landlord for the requisite period before acquiring proprietary rights?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that there was no provision in the Act or the rules framed thereunder requiring the filing of copies of the orders of the Collector and the Prescribed Authority with the revision petitions. Therefore, the Financial Commissioner had erred in rejecting the revision petitions summarily on this ground. 2. The court held that the surrender of possession of the land by the tenant, pursuant to the compromise between the landowner and the tenant, was sufficient to terminate the tenancy. The provisions of Sections 7 and 7-A of the Act, which dealt with the termination of tenancy, did not apply in this case, as the tenant had voluntarily surrendered possession of the land. 3. The court held that the tenant was required to be in possession of the same particular piece of land continuously for the statutory period before acquiring proprietary rights therein. It was not sufficient for the tenant to have been in possession of the same area of land under the landowner, but occupying different parcels of land.

Final Decision: The court allowed the landowner's appeal, set aside the judgment of the single judge, and quashed the impugned order of the Financial Commissioner. The parties were directed to bear their own costs.

Judgment

P.C.Pandit, J.

1. This order will dispose of three connected Letters Patent Appeals Nos. 299, 300 and 485 of 1970. It is conceded by the counsel for the parties that the decision in Letters Patent Appeal No. 299 of 1970 will govern the other appeals as well.

2. Jaisi Ram was the owner of the land in dispute. He filed four writ petitions (Nos. 2361 to 2364 of 1963) under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution against his tenants on four different parcels of land. His prayer was that the orders passed by the Financial Commissioner, Punjab, conferring proprietary rights on the tenants under the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955, hereinafter called the Act, in each case be quashed. All these petitions came up for hearing before C. G. Suri, J. and since the questions of law and fact involved in them were similar and the Revenue Authorities had also taken up those cases together, the learned Judge disposed of the writ petitions by one judgment. All those petitions were dismissed with the result that Jaisi Ram filed these four Letters Patent Appeals. One of them, namely, Letters Patent Appeal No. 483 of 1970, which was against the judgment in Civil Writ No. 2362 of 1963, has admittedly abated. The other three Letters Patent Appeals viz. Letters Patent Appeals Nos. 299, 300 and 485 of 1970, which have arisen out of the Writ Petition Nos. 2364, 2361 and 2363 of 1963, respectively, are being disposed of by this judgment.

3. In Civil Writs Nos. 2361 and 2363 of 1963, the learned Financial Commissioner had rejected the land-owners revision petitions summarily on the ground that the copies of the orders of the Collector and the Prescribed Authority had not been filed along with them. Regarding this matter, the finding of the learned Single Judge was that there was no provision in the Act or in the rules framed thereunder requiring the filing of such copies with the revision petitions. On this point, the learned Judge observed:

"Such revisions lie under sub-s.(3) of Section 39 which gives the Financial Commissioner the power to call for, examine and revise the proceedings of subordinate authorities in the manner provided under Section 84 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887. Sub-sections(1) and (2) of S. 39 dealing with filing of appeals indicate that certified copies of the orders under appeal are to accompany the memorandum of appeal, but there is no such indication with regard to the filing of certified copies in sub-section(3) dealing with revisions. The rules framed under this Act or the Punjab Tenancy Act also do not require any copies to be filed with the revision petitions."

He then held that the summary rejection of the revision petitions on that ground, therefore, was not justified.

4 Counsel for the State submitted that the above finding of the learned Single Judge was wrong in law and the Financial Commissioner had rightly rejected the aforementioned two revision petitions summarily. He, however, was unable to substantiate his submission by reference to any statutory law or rule or any decided case. It was conceded that the said revisions had been filed under Section39(3) of the Act. It was not stated in this section that the certified copies of the orders of the Collector and the Prescribed Authority had to be attached with the revision petitions. The learned Single Judge was, if I may say so with respect, right in observing that sub-sections(1) and (2) of S.39 dealing with the filing of appeals indicated that certified copies of the orders under appeal were to accompany the memorandum of appeal. But there was no such indication with regard to the attaching of certified copies under sub-section(3) dealing with revisions. Sub-section(3) says that the Financial Commissioner shall have the same power to call for examine and revise the proceedings of the Prescribed Authority or the Assistant Collector of the First Grade or the Collector or the Commissioner as is provided in Section 84 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887


































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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