2001 Supreme(P&H) 395

PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Arun B.Saharya and V.K.Bali JJ.
Jawan (Died)
Versus
Mewa Singh (Died) By L.Rs.
Letter Patent Appeal No. 1166 of 1988,
Decided On : MARCH 28, 2001

Headnote:

The Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955 (Act of 1955) was enacted to secure the rights of tenants, provide for acquisition of proprietary rights in the land to the tenant, provide for permissible limit of 30 standard acres, acquire surplus areas and distribute them amongst certain classes of persons including landless persons, and provide for compensation at prescribed rates payable by tenants and by Government on its acquiring surplus land. The Act lays down two corollaries, namely, (1) not to recognise any transfer or disposition made by a landowner after a certain date as otherwise the scheme of distribution of surplus land would be frustrated, and (ii) to equate an individual landowner and a Hindu undivided family consisting of a landowner and his descendants so that both the units are entitled to hold only the permissible area of the standard acres.

Fact of the Case:

The appellants, tenants of big landowner Bhag Singh, on Introduction of Act of 1955, thought that a piece of land occupied by them for number of years would now be owned by them. Luck has smiled on them and their status would change from mere tillers of land to landowners. In their pursuit to become proprietors, they made an application on August 26, 1963 before the Prescribed Authority. A period of nearly four decades has gone by and, as on today, far from being proprietors, they are not even in possession of land, erstwhile occupied by them as tenants, having been forcibly dispossessed. The big landowner, Bhag Singh and his successors-in-interest have webbed a net around the appellants in which they have weaved all tricks.

Finding of the Court:

The Court found that the appellants had succeeded in obtaining proprietary rights of the land in question by virtue of an order passed by the concerned authority which order was confirmed in appeal and two revisions filed by the petitioners. No doubt, all these orders were set aside by the learned single Judge, but, as mentioned above, the operation of judgment was stayed by an interim order passed by the Letters Patent while admitting the appeal to a regular hearing. The moment, operation of judgment passed by learned single Judge was stayed, orders passed by the concerned authorities conferring the proprietary rights upon the appellants, were revived. That being so, petitioners were no more owners of the land in dispute, having been divested of the title that erstwhile vested in them. They were, thus, not competent to enter into a compromise with regard to the land that had gone out of their hands. Further, compromise, Annexure C-1 would amount to transfer of land from the appellants to the petitioners which required compulsory registration under S. 17 of the Registration Act, 1988.

Issues: 1. Whether the compromise, Annexure C-1, is valid and enforceable? 2. Whether the appellants are entitled to acquire proprietary rights in the land in dispute?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the compromise, Annexure C-1, is not valid and enforceable as it was not proved to the satisfaction of the Court that the suit has been adjusted wholly or in part by any lawful agreement and further that compromise having been denied by the appellants, no proper and admissible evidence has been led that may result in returning a finding on existence or validity of the compromise. 2. The Court held that the appellants are entitled to acquire proprietary rights in the land in dispute as they were not occupying the permissible area of landowner and they were not liable for eviction in view of provisions contained in S. 7-A of the Act of 1955. It was further held that partition between father and sons is nothing but transfer and even if, therefore, same is valid, it would not come in the way of appellants in acquiring proprietary rights.

Final Decision: The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the learned single Judge, and restored the orders passed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Patiala, Collector Patiala, Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala and Financial Commissioner, Punjab. The Court also directed the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Fatehgarh Sahib to ensure that appellants are restored possession of land, from which they were dispossessed, within fifteen days from the date a copy of this order is made available to him.