Back
2009 Supreme(P&H) 743
2010 (1) RCR(Civ) 325
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RANJIT SINGH, J.
Dalip Singh (Retd.) - Petitioner
VERSUS
The State of Punjab & another - Respondents
C.W.P No. 450 of 1985
Decided on: APRIL 20, 2009
Mr. A.K. Chopra, Senior Advocate with Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. P.C. Goyal, Addl. A.G. Punjab, for respondent No.1
Mr. P.N. Aggarwal, Advocate, for respondent No.2
Retired servicemen are not considered members of the Armed Forces for the purpose of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, and tenants must be accommodated on alternative land as per the Act.
Headnote:
Armed Forces - Ejectment under Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act - Section 9, 9-A - Summary of Acts and Sections
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a member of the Armed Forces, sought ejectment of a tenant under Section 9 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act. The tenant challenged the ejectment, claiming that the petitioner was not entitled to the benefit of the proviso under Section 9-A(i) as he had retired from the Armed Forces.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner, having retired from the Armed Forces, was not entitled to the benefit of the proviso under Section 9-A(i) and that the tenant had not been accommodated on alternative land as required by the Act.
Issues: The issues included the interpretation of 'members of the Armed Forces' and whether the tenant had been accommodated on alternative land as per the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a retired serviceman is not considered a member of the Armed Forces for the purpose of the proviso under Section 9-A(i) and that the tenant must be accommodated on alternative land as per the Act.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petitions, finding them without merit.
RANJIT SINGH, J. - This order will dispose of four Civil Writ Petition Nos.450 of 1985 (Major Dalip Singh Vs. The State of Punjab and another), 641 of 1985 (Major Dalip Singh Vs. The State of Punjab and another), 642 of 1985 (Major Dalip Singh Vs. The State of Punjab and another) and 643 of 1985 (Major Dalip Singh Vs. The State of Punjab and another). The facts are being taken from Civil Writ Petition No.450 of 1985.
2. Respondent No.2 Avtar Singh was a tenant under the petitioner. On 9.2.1982, the petitioner filed an application seeking ejectment of respondent No.2 from the area reserved on Form K-2 under the provisions of Section 9 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act (for short “Tenure Act”. On 3.6.1983, Assistant Collector Ist Grade accepted the application and passed an order of ejectment of respondent No.2 from the reserved area of the petitioner. Assistant Collector viewed that amendment in the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act in 1969 that the tenant shall not be liable to be evicted from a minimum of 5 standard acres until he was allotted alternative land should not apply to the petitioner being member of Armed Forces. The petitioner dispossessed respondent No.2 on the basis of this order. Respondent No.2 filed an appeal against the same before Collector, which was dismissed on 26.9.1983, but with a rider that respondent No.2 shall be ejected from the reserved area only after his re-settlement on the alternative land equivalent to 5 standard acres, as provided in the proviso to the Section. This was so held finding that the petitioner had already retired from the service of the Army and as such was not entitled to protection available under Section 9-A(i) of the Tenure Act. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner filed an appeal before Commissioner, Jullundur Division, Jullundur which was dismissed on 2.5.1984. Financial Commissioner also dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner on 31.12.1984. The petitioner has, thus, challenged the orders dated 31.12.1984, 2.5.1984 and 26.9.1983 passed by Financial Commissioner, Commissioner and Collector, Amritsar, respectively. The petitioner, claiming to be a member of the Armed Forces, pleads that he would be entitled to the benefit of the provisions to Section 9-A(i) of the Section, which provides that tenant of a landowner, who is a member of the Armed Forces of the Union, shall not be entitled to the benefit of this Section. The Section grants benefit to a tenant of a small landowner to retain possession of his tenancy to the extent of 5 acres until he is accommodated on a surplus area otherwise. The petitioner pleads that he would be exempted from the operation of this stipulation being member of the Armed Forces.
3. In the reply filed, number of preliminary objections have been raised and it is pleaded that the writ petition is not competent and is liable to be dismissed as necessary parties have not been impleaded. Allegations of mis-statement of facts and for stating wrong facts are also made. On merits, it is stated that Lajja Singh great-grand father of the answering respondent used to cultivate the land as a tenant under Raja Hira Singh. After death of Lajja Singh, his son Khushal Singh, grand-father of answering respondent became the tenant under Raja Karam Singh, the adopted son of Raja Hira Singh. After the death of Khushal Singh, his sons Surain Singh (father of the answering respondent) and Narain Singh became tenants under Raja Karam Singh, the grand father of the petitioner and after death of Surain Singh, the answering respondent has become tenant on the land. It is further brought out that the petitioner became owner of the land in the year 1952, whereas tenancy of the respondent is for more than hundred years. It is on this basis pleaded that the petitioner was not entitled to include the land in question in his reserved area and was to be left out as tenant's permissible area. Grievance is made that the petitioner has managed to get
