Back
2018 Supreme(P&H) 4312
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Anil Kshetarpal, J.
Mandi Adampur Co-operative Society Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Mohar Singh - Respondent
RSA No. 1707 of 2013 (O&M)
Decided On : 16-10-2018
Amit Singla, Advocate, for the Appellant; Vijay S. Kajla, Advocate, for the Respondent
The literal meaning of 'Gair Marusi' implies that non-occupancy tenants cannot acquire the status and rights of occupancy tenants.
Headnote:
Punjab Tenancy Act - Occupancy Tenants - Sections 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 of the Act of 1887 and Section 3 of the Act of 1952
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs filed suits claiming occupancy rights in agricultural land and ownership under the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 and Punjab Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act, 1952. The appellant purchased the land in an auction and sought eviction of the plaintiffs under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953.
Finding of the Court:
The courts below decreed the suits, finding that the plaintiffs had continuously occupied the land for over 30 years and paid nominal rent, thus becoming occupancy tenants and owners under the Acts.
Issues: Whether the plaintiffs had become occupancy tenants and owners under the Acts based on continuous occupation and payment of nominal rent.
Ratio Decidendi: The plaintiffs failed to provide conclusive evidence of tenancy, as the revenue records did not support their claim of being tenants, and the oral evidence was insufficient. The court held that the literal meaning of 'Gair Marusi' (non-occupancy) implies that such tenants cannot acquire the status and rights of occupancy tenants.
Final Decision: The appeals were allowed, and the judgments and decrees of the lower courts were set aside.
Key Points: - The literal meaning of "Gair Marusi" implies non-occupancy tenants cannot acquire occupancy rights under the Punjab Tenancy Act and related Acts. (!) (!) - The plaintiff-respondents failed to prove tenancy and occupancy rights with conclusive evidence; mere possession or revenue record entries (including gair marusi status) do not automatically establish tenancy/occupancy, requiring a contractual basis or clear evidence of occupancy. (!) (!) (!) - The court held that occupancy rights and subsequent vesting as ownership under the 1952 Act require clear proof of occupancy as defined and cannot be inferred from long possession or nominal rent; seven regular second appeals are allowed, setting aside lower court judgments. (!) (!)
Question 1?
Question 2?
Question 3?
JUDGMENT
Anil Kshetarpal, J. - Through this judgment, seven Regular Second Appeals bearing RSA Nos.1707 to 1710 of 2013 and 1761 to 1763 of 2013 shall stand decided as the issue which needs determination is common. Learned counsels for the parties are also in agreement that all these appeals can be conveniently disposed of by a common judgment.
2. The question which needs determination is whether the plaintiffs-respondents have become occupancy tenants and consequently owners, in terms of the provisions of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 (for short 'the Act of 1887') and Punjab Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act, 1952 (for short 'the Act of 1952').
3. It would be appropriate to notice facts in each case.
Facts
4. In all these cases, the respondents-plaintiffs have filed separate suits for declaration to the effect that since they have acquired occupancy rights in respect of agriculture land in their possession, they have become owners under the Act of 1952.
5. In RSA No.1707 of 2013, the plaintiffs-respondents filed a suit for declaration that they have acquired occupancy rights in respect of land measuring 19 kanals and 7 marlas situated in Village Kaliravan, Tehsil Adampur, District Hisar. In fact in all these cases, the difference is only with regard to quantum of the land. In RSA No.1708 of 2013, the land is 8 kanals, whereas in RSA No.1709 of 2013, the land is 18 kanals and 9 marlas. In RSA No.1710 of 2013 the land is 17 kanals and 12 marlas, in RSA No.1761 of 2013 land is 61 kalans and 6 marlas, in RSA No.1762 of 2013 land is 16 kanals and in RSA No.1763 of 2013 the land is 13 kanals and 10 marlas. In all these cases, the plaintiffs-respondents have pleaded that they are cultivating the suit land since the time of their ancestors for the last more than 100 years as tenants on payment of nominal rent as 'Gair Marusi'. It has further been pleaded that the original owner Ranjit Singh son of Beg Raj had orally promised not to evict the plaintiffs ever from the suit land.
6. The appellant-defendant purchased the property in an open auction. An arbitration award was passed in favour of the defendant-appellant. Execution application was filed in order to execute the award passed by the Court of Sh.V.K.Kaushal, Senior Sub Judge, Hisar on 17.3.1970 and in pursuant thereto, in court auction, the property was purchased. Sale certificate was issued in favour of the appellant-Society on 13.2.1973 and land was transferred in favour of the appellant-Society on 28.8.1974. The appellantsociety filed an application for seeking eviction of the plaintiff-respondent as per the provisions of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, which was decided ex parte and appeal against the same is pending before the Court. The plaintiffs in each suit claim that they have become owners as per the provisions of the Act of 1952. At this stage, it will be noted that the pleading in the plaint in each suit is similar. For the facility of reference, the pleadings are extracted as under:-
"2. That when the fore fathers of the plaintiffs were inducted as tenant by owners of the land, on the disputed land detailed in the head note of the plaint, the land was unfit for cultivation and on the promise of the owners of the land that they make the land cultivable and pay only nominal rent, they and their successors in interest shall never be ejected from the suit land, they started cultivating the suit land;
3. That on the oral promise between the forefathers of plaintiffs and previous owner/predecessors in interest of the defendant, the forefathers of the plaintiffs after putting hard labour and spending huge amount made the land cultivable and have been paying nominal rent and are cultivating the land continuously. They have never been ejected from any court nor they have surrendered the possession to the defendant or to any one. Prior to the defen
