IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Kashmir Singh ...Appellant Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents Reserved on: 24.02.2026 Pronounced on: 26.02.2026 Pronounced fully/opera7ve part: Fully CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Argued by: Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Arora, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Puru Jarewal, DAG, Punjab for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

Mr. Cyrus, Advocate for Mr. M.K. Dogra, Advocate for respondent No.3.

****

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

The plain.ff is in regular second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 09.09.1999 passed by the learned Addi.onal District Judge, Ferozepur whereby the suit for declara.on and injunc.on, though decreed by the trial Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) on 05.06.1997, was reversed and dismissed.

2. For the sake of convenience, the par.es are referred to as per their status before the trial Court. The original record has been perused.

3. The dispute relates to land earlier owned by Guru Karam Singh which was declared surplus. The plain.ff Fauja Singh, a tenant over the suit land, sought to purchase the same under Sec.on 18 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953. His applica.on was allowed by the SDO (Civil) on 31.05.1967 (Ex.P1), fixing the purchase price payable in ten instalments, the first instalment falling due on 14.06.1967.

4. The plain.ff pleaded that he paid the instalments directly to the landowner between 1967 and 1973 and relied upon receipts Ex.P2 to Ex.P5. It was asserted that upon payment of the last instalment, he became owner, though muta.on was never sanc.oned and the State authori.es con.nued to reflect themselves in the revenue record, allegedly threatening dispossession.

5. Defendant No.3, brother of the plain.ff, supported the claim.

6. The State authori.es contested the suit raising objec.ons of jurisdic.on, limita.on and maintainability, while admiEng the surplus declara.on and order Ex.P1. However, they denied payment of instalments in the legally prescribed manner and asserted that the plain.ff con.nued merely as a gair-marusi tenant.

6. The trial Court decreed the suit holding that payment stood proved through receipts and consequently the plain.ff had acquired ownership.

7. The First Appellate Court, on re-apprecia.on of evidence and statutory provisions, reversed the decree holding that the statutory mode of payment was not complied with and that the suit was barred by limita.on.

8. On behalf of the appellant–plain.ff, Learned counsel contends that the underlying object of permiEng a tenant to purchase surplus land is to ensure payment of the purchase price to the landowner, and once such payment stands made, the benefit of ownership cannot be denied on technical grounds. It is argued that receipts Ex.P2 to Ex.P5 evidencing payment of instalments to the landowner have not been specifically disputed as having been issued by him, and therefore the First Appellate Court erred in discarding them and reversing the well-reasoned decree of the trial Court.

9. It is, however, fairly conceded by learned counsel for the appellant that the landowner Guru Karam Singh was not examined to prove the receipts Ex.P2 to Ex.P5 in accordance with law. It is further conceded that the order dated 31.05.1967 (Ex.P1) did not authorise or direct payment of instalments directly to the landowner, thereby lending support to the respondents’ stand that the statutory mode of deposit before the competent revenue authority was not complied with.

10. Sec.on 18(4)(b) of the Act declares that ownership vests in the tenant only upon deposit of the purchase price or first instalment. Rule 23(3) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules mandates that such amount shall be deposited in the Government treasury, sub-treasury or paid to the Assistant Collector I Grade.

11. The use of the expression “being deposited” in Sec.on 18(4) (b), read with the mandatory language of Rule 23 employing the word “shall”, leaves liLle scope for devia.on. The statutory scheme does not mere