[208] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-2502-1999 (O&M)

Date of Decision : 08.04.2025 Punjab State through Revenue Collector, Punjab, Chandigarh and others …Appellants versus Kartar Singh and others ….Respondents Coram : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Present: Mr. Ishan Kaushal, AAG, Punjab Mr. H.S. Batth, Advocate for the respondents.

***

PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL)

[1] Defendants-State of Punjab is in Regular Second Appeal.

[2] Plaintiff filed a suit seeking decree of declaration to the effect that he has become owner in possession of the suit property as detailed out in the headnote of the plaint [3] Plaintiff claimed that he was a tenant in the suit property having inherited rights of tenancy from his forefathers qua land measuring 120 kanals (hereinafter referred to as the suit property).

[4] Plaintiff along with his brother was in possession as occupancy tenant. State of Punjab and other East Punjab States vide Ordinance promulgated as Patiala and East Punjab States Union Abolition of Biswedari Ordinance, 2006 BK determined the rights of the occupancy tenants and the landlords, it was held that the occupancy tenants are entitled to 3/4^th of the entire holding held by them and the landlord shall own the remaining 1/4^th share. Out of 120 kanals, possessed by the plaintiff and his brother as RAJNEESH SHARMA occupancy tenants, 32 kanals 02 marlas was given to the real owner i.e. State of Punjab and rest of the land came under the ownership of plaintiff Ganda Singh. However, the revenue record could not be corrected. In the column of ownership, provincial Government was recorded as the owner. Plaintiff thus claimed his entitlement as owner, claiming that he along with his brother being occupancy tenants and he having inherited tenancy rights from his brother on his death, is entitled to be declared as owner of the entire suit land.

[5] The suit was contested by the defendants.

[6] It was claimed that only lineal descendant or widow can enjoy the tenancy rights and thus, the plaintiff does not fall within the purview of Section 18 of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955. It was further claimed that by the dint of enactment of Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955, the Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act, 1952 stands repealed. It was further claimed that neither under the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955 nor under any other law, ownership vested in the State can be transferred in the name of the plaintiff.

[7] Suit was put to trial framing following issues:-

“1. Whether the plaintiff is the owner in possession of the land in dispute? OPD.

2. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi and cause of action to file the suit? OPD.

3. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present from?

OPD.

4. Whether the plantiff has not served notice U/s 80 CPC? If so its effect ? OPD.

5. Whether the civil court has no jurisdiction to try the suit?

OPD.

RAJNEESH SHARMA

6. Whether he suit is within limitation? OPP.

7. Whether the defendants are entitled to special costs U/s 35-A?

OPD.

1-A. Whether the plaintiffs had become owner in possession of the suit land by operation of law since 1946 and 1952 due to enactment ? OPP.

3-A. Whether provision of Sec 18 of the Pepsu and Agricultural Lands Act which has been repealed is applicable to the present suit ? OPD.

8. Relief. ”

[8] Issue Nos.1 and 1-A were decided together. Trial Court found that petitioner Ganda Singh along with his brother Kaku Singh have been recorded as occupancy tenants prior to coming into force of the 1954 Act. In terms of Section 2 (1) (a) of the 1954 Act, the plaintiff along with his brother-Kaku Singh are deemed to be occupancy tenants on the appointed date. Thus, in terms of the provision as contained under 1954 Act, the plaintiff attained ownership rights. Trial Court thus held that in view of admitted tenancy and the continuation of the possession of the plaintiff since the year 1931, the plaintiffs are proved to b