Back
1998 Supreme(P&H) 747
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
G.C.Garg and B.Rai JJ.
Baldev Singh
Versus
State Of Punjab
Civil Writ Petition No. 3646 of 1997,
Decided On : MAY 28, 1998
A tenant cannot challenge the title of his landlord. Once a person is found to be a tenant, he has no right to throw a challenge to the title of his landlord.
Headnote:
EAST PUNJAB HOLDINGS (CONSOLIDATION AND PREVENTION OF FRAGMENTATION) ACT, 1948 - SECTION 42 - TENANCY - A tenant cannot challenge the title of his landlord. Once a person is found to be a tenant, he has no right to throw a challenge to the title of his landlord.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, Baldev Singh, filed a petition under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948, claiming ownership of the land in dispute. He alleged that he had been in possession of the land prior to 1950 and had spent a huge amount on its development. The Gram Panchayat, respondent No. 3, contested the claim, stating that the petitioner had taken the land on lease from the Gram Panchayat and had not surrendered possession after the expiry of the lease period.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the consolidation authorities had no right to go into the question of title or to effect the partition determining the shares of the parties in the land. The court also held that the petitioner was a tenant on the land in question and had no right to claim title to the property. After the expiry of the lease period, he had become an unauthorized occupant of the land in dispute and could not be allowed to retain possession thereof.
Issues: 1. Whether the consolidation authorities have the right to go into the question of title or to effect the partition determining the shares of the parties in the land? 2. Whether the petitioner is a tenant on the land in question and has the right to claim title to the property?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The consolidation authorities have no right to go into the question of title or to effect the partition determining the shares of the parties in the land. 2. A tenant cannot challenge the title of his landlord. Once a person is found to be a tenant, he has no right to throw a challenge to the title of his landlord.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed with costs.
B.Rai, J.
1. This petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed with a prayer to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 31.3.1995 Annexure P-4 by Deputy Commissioner- cum-District Collector, Kapurthala and order dated 26.4.1996 Annexure P5 passed by the Joint Development Commissioner (IRD) Punjab ignoring the order dated 2.11.1995 Annexure P1 passed by Additional Director Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, Jalandhar.
2. Facts of the case are that the land in dispute is comprised in Khewat Khatauni No. 130/213, Khasra No. 173(3-10), 174(6-0), 181(3-4), 182(6-0), 183(6-2). The case of the petitioner is that prior to consolidation the land in dispute was described as Shamlat Deh Hasab Rasad Khewat in the revenue record. During the consolidation some land was used for common purposes and the remaining was shown as Shamlat Deh Hasab Rasad Khewat. The land in question was Banjar. The petitioner spent huge amount on its development and made the same cultivable. He is in possession of the land in dispute prior to 1950 and the Gram Panchayat has no right or concern with the land in dispute. The land in dispute vests in the petitioner and the Central Government. Petitioner filed an application under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) before the Additional Director Consolidation of Holdings Punjab with a prayer that the land in question be shown as the ownership of the petitioner or that of the Central Government and that he be also shown in possession of the land in dispute. His case further is that in the column of cultivation land is described as Makbooja Malkan, as such right-holders are recorded to be in possession of the land and Gram Panchayat has nothing to do with it. That petition was accepted by the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings vide his order dated 2.11.1995 Annexure P-1 and remanded the case to the Consolidation Officer with the directions that he should thoroughly scrutinise the record and determine the shares of local Malkans and that of Central Government and accordingly correct the entries in the revenue record. It is further pleaded that the petitioner who is tenant on the Khasra Number mentioned in the record should be shown as such in respect of the share of Central Government.
3. In response to the notice of motion, Gram Panchayat respondent No. 3 has contested the claim of the petitioner by filing a written statement. Apart from the preliminary objections, the case of the Gram Panchayat is that the petitioner had taken the land on lease from the Gram Panchayat. After the expiry of the lease period, he did not surrender the possession back to the Gram Panchayat. It is specific case of respondent No. 3 that the petitioner has not brought any document on record to show that he is in possession of the land in question before 1950. As regards the averments regarding the order of the Additional Director Consolidation dated 2.11.1995 Annexure P-1 that has already been set aside in CWP No. 804 of 1996 decided on 17.1.1997, since reported as (1998-2)119 P.L.R. 631 Annexure R3/1.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. At the outset, we are of the view that after the decision by the consolidation authorities, the consolidation authorities have no right to go into the question of title or to effect the partition determining the shares of the parties in the land which is sought to be done by passing order dated 2.11.1995 Annexure P1. Therefore, the order dated 2.11.1995 is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Baldev Singh, petitioner filed an application under Section 42 of the Act before the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, who accepted the same and remanded the case vide order dated 2.11.1995 Annexure P1 with the direction that "he should thoroughly scrutinise the record to determine the shares
