1. Tenancy holding over — Fixed term lease expiry — No consent or rent acceptance by lessor. (Para 2 , 5 , 8 , 10 , 15 , 16 , 25 , 31 , 32 , 33 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 79241
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Harsh Bunger, J
Sukhwant Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab – Respondent
CWP-6359-2017 (O&M)
Important Points
A lessee becomes a "tenant holding over" only if they remain in possession and the lessor accepts rent or assents. Furthermore, "evacuee land" is excluded from the Punjab Allotment of State Government Land Act, 2016, and cultivating possession must be proven through revenue records.
Subject
Civil Law - Land Law
Act Referred
Punjab Allotment of State Government Land Act, 2016: S.2(i), S.3
Transfer of Property Act, 1882: S.106, S.111(a), S.116
Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Act, 1976
Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Rules, 1976: R.4, R.4(2), R.4.1(v)
Nazool Land Transfer Rules, 1956
Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972
Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961
East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948: S.23-A, S.42-A
Transfer of Property Act, 1882: S.106, S.111(a), S.116
Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Act, 1976
Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Rules, 1976: R.4, R.4(2), R.4.1(v)
Nazool Land Transfer Rules, 1956
Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972
Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961
East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948: S.23-A, S.42-A
Headnote
(A) Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Sections 106, 111(a) and 116 - Determination of lease - Effect of holding over - For a lessee to be considered a “tenant holding over,” two conditions must be met: the lessee must remain in possession after the determination of the lease, and the lessor or their legal representative must accept rent or otherwise assent to the continuation of possession (Paras 12 and 15.1) - Where a lease is for a definite term and expires by efflux of time under Section 111(a), the service of notice under Section 106 is not necessary (Para 13).
(B) Punjab Allotment of State Government Land Act, 2016 - Section 2(i) - Definition of land - Land defined under the Act specifically excludes “evacuee land” governed by the Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Act, 1976 (Paras 19 and 21) - Occupants seeking allotment under this Act must prove “cultivating possession” for more than twenty years; such a claim can be rebutted by revenue records showing the land as vacant or unsown (Paras 23 and 24).
(C) Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Act, 1976 - Allotment to disabled soldiers - Allotments made pursuant to government policy to disabled soldiers, following a considered decision by competent authorities and without evidence of fraud or misrepresentation, are valid and should not be unsettled (Paras 43 and 45).
Facts of the case:
The petitioners claimed possession of agricultural land, asserting that their predecessor-in-interest was granted a ten-year fixed-term lease. They contended that upon the lease's expiry, they continued as “tenants holding over” and sought allotment of the land under a 2016 Act requiring twenty years of cultivating possession. However, the government had allotted the land to a disabled soldier based on a 1972 recommendation and a subsequent 2016 order. The government denied the petitioners' claim, stating the land was “evacuee land” excluded from the 2016 Act and that revenue records showed the land was vacant.
Findings of Court:
The court found that there was no evidence of the lessor accepting rent or assenting to the petitioners' possession after the lease expired in 1981, thus rejecting the “tenant holding over” plea. The land was identified as evacuee land, placing it outside the scope of the 2016 Act. Additionally, Jamabandi records described the land as unsown or unirrigated, contradicting the claim of cultivating possession. The allotment to the disabled soldier was found to be based on legitimate policy and high-level administrative approval.
Issues: (I) Whether after the expiry of a fixed term lease, the possession of petitioners continues as “tenant holding over”? (II) Whether the petitioners are entitled to allotment of land under the provisions of the Punjab Allotment of State Government Land Act, 2016? (III) Whether the allotment of land to a disabled soldier is liable to be set aside?
Ratio Decidendi: A tenant cannot claim protection as a “tenant holding over” without proof of the landlord's consent or acceptance of rent after a fixed-term lease expires. Entitlement to land allotment under specific statutes is barred if the land falls under a statutory exclusion (such as evacuee land) and requires affirmative proof of cultivating possession, which cannot be established if revenue records reflect the land as vacant. Lawful allotments to disabled soldiers under established government policy, devoid of fraud, are equitable and valid.
Result: writ petition... dismissed.
(B) Punjab Allotment of State Government Land Act, 2016 - Section 2(i) - Definition of land - Land defined under the Act specifically excludes “evacuee land” governed by the Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Act, 1976 (Paras 19 and 21) - Occupants seeking allotment under this Act must prove “cultivating possession” for more than twenty years; such a claim can be rebutted by revenue records showing the land as vacant or unsown (Paras 23 and 24).
(C) Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Act, 1976 - Allotment to disabled soldiers - Allotments made pursuant to government policy to disabled soldiers, following a considered decision by competent authorities and without evidence of fraud or misrepresentation, are valid and should not be unsettled (Paras 43 and 45).
Facts of the case:
The petitioners claimed possession of agricultural land, asserting that their predecessor-in-interest was granted a ten-year fixed-term lease. They contended that upon the lease's expiry, they continued as “tenants holding over” and sought allotment of the land under a 2016 Act requiring twenty years of cultivating possession. However, the government had allotted the land to a disabled soldier based on a 1972 recommendation and a subsequent 2016 order. The government denied the petitioners' claim, stating the land was “evacuee land” excluded from the 2016 Act and that revenue records showed the land was vacant.
Findings of Court:
The court found that there was no evidence of the lessor accepting rent or assenting to the petitioners' possession after the lease expired in 1981, thus rejecting the “tenant holding over” plea. The land was identified as evacuee land, placing it outside the scope of the 2016 Act. Additionally, Jamabandi records described the land as unsown or unirrigated, contradicting the claim of cultivating possession. The allotment to the disabled soldier was found to be based on legitimate policy and high-level administrative approval.
Issues: (I) Whether after the expiry of a fixed term lease, the possession of petitioners continues as “tenant holding over”? (II) Whether the petitioners are entitled to allotment of land under the provisions of the Punjab Allotment of State Government Land Act, 2016? (III) Whether the allotment of land to a disabled soldier is liable to be set aside?
Ratio Decidendi: A tenant cannot claim protection as a “tenant holding over” without proof of the landlord's consent or acceptance of rent after a fixed-term lease expires. Entitlement to land allotment under specific statutes is barred if the land falls under a statutory exclusion (such as evacuee land) and requires affirmative proof of cultivating possession, which cannot be established if revenue records reflect the land as vacant. Lawful allotments to disabled soldiers under established government policy, devoid of fraud, are equitable and valid.
Result: writ petition... dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
property law
- lease
- allotment of state land
- transfer of property act, 1882
- administrative law
- practice and procedure
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Amit Jain, Aryaman Thakur
For the Respondents: Navneet Singh, Ashwani Kumar Chopra, Brahmjot Nahar, Gaurav Chopra, Darika Sikka
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Amit Jain, Aryaman Thakur
For the Respondents: Navneet Singh, Ashwani Kumar Chopra, Brahmjot Nahar, Gaurav Chopra, Darika Sikka
Table of Contents
2. Petitioners claim tenant holding over and entitlement under 2016 Act; State denies, citing evacuee land exclusion. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 )
3. No consent or rent acceptance after fixed term lease expiry, so no tenant holding over; land is evacuee land excluded from 2016 Act. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 )
4. For tenant holding over under Section 116, TP Act, lessee must show lessor's consent or rent acceptance after lease expiry. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 )
5. Writ petition dismissed; allotment to disabled soldier upheld as valid. (Para 49 , 50 )
6. When does a lessee become a 'tenant holding over' under Section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882?
When the lessee remains in possession after lease determination AND the lessor accepts rent or otherwise assents to the lessee's continued possession. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 )
7. Is a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act required when a fixed-term lease expires by efflux of time?
No, service of notice under Section 106 is not necessary when a lease for a definite term expires by efflux of time under Section 111(a). (Para 13 , 14 , 24 )
8. Can evacuee land be allotted under the Punjab Allotment of State Government Land Act, 2016?
No, evacuee land is expressly excluded from the definition of 'land' under Section 2(i) of the 2016 Act and cannot be allotted under it. (Para 19 , 21 , 24 , 29 , 44 )
9. Can the State withdraw an admission made in a filed written statement without proper justification?
No, categorical admissions in pleadings cannot be resiled from, though they may be explained or clarified in a given case. (Para 27 , 28 )
10. Can a disabled soldier's allotment of evacuee land be set aside on a vague allegation of mala fides or proxy allotment?
No, without specific allegations or proof of fraud, concealment, or misrepresentation, a conscious government decision after due deliberation will not be set aside. (Para 42 , 43 , 45 , 47 )
HARSH BUNGER J.
Petition herein is, inter alia, seeking a writ in the nature of Certiorari for setting aside the order dated 21.02.2017 (Annexure P-6), passed by the Revenue and Rehabilitation Department, Government of Punjab, whereby land measuring 44 Kanal-5 Marla situated in Village Majra, Tehsil Kharar, District S.A.S. Nagar (Mohali), was allotted in favour of Sh. Jeet Singh (since deceased); as also the Conveyance Deed dated 02.03.2017 (Annexure P-9) executed pursuant thereto in his favour.
1.1 A further prayer has been made for directing the respondent-authorities to consider the claim of the petitioners for allotment of the very same land in their favour under the provisions of the Punjab Allotment of State Government Land Act, 2016.
2. Briefly, the petitioners claim themselves to be in possession of the land measuring 40 Kanal-4 Marla, situated in Village Majra, Tehsil Kharar, District Mohali, comprised in Rectangle No.10, Khasra No.20 (8-0), 21/1 (4-0); Rectangle No.11, Khasra No.24 (8-0), 25 (8-0); and Rectangle No.17, Khasra No.4 (4-4), 5/1 (4-0) and 7/2 (4-0) [hereinafter to be referred as ‘the land in question’].
2.1 It is the case of the petitioners that their predecessor-in-interest, namely Sh. Karam Singh, was granted leasehold rights over the land in question by the Government of Punjab, vide Lease Deed dated 27.10.1971 (Annexure P-1). The said lease was for a period of ten years starting with effect from Crop Sauni 1969 (or Kharif 1969).
2.2 The petitioners claim that they have continued to remain in possession of the land in question through their predecessor-in-interest, namely Sh. Karam Singh, as lessees, and upon expiry of the fixed term lease period, they are in possession of said land as “tenants holding over”.
2.3 It has further been averred that the Government has never terminated the aforesaid lease. In support of their plea regarding possession over the land in question, the petitioners have placed reliance upon the judgment and decree dated 08.12.2015 (Annexure P-5), passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kharar, in Civil Suit No.399 dated 10.12.2022, instituted by one Sh. Som Singh against Sh. Surjit Singh (father of petitioners No.1 and 2 herein) and Sh. Mohinder Singh (petitioner No.3 herein).
2.4 It is alleged that the petitioners have been continuing in peaceful cultivating possession of the land in question; however, to their utter surprise, in the first week of March, 2017, Sh. Jeet Singh (since deceased) came to the spot along with some revenue officials and attempted to dispossess the petitioners by claiming himself to be the owner of the land in question. Consequently, the petitioners submitted a representation dated 21.02.2017 (Annexure P-6) to the learned Deputy Commissioner, S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali, and also lodged a complaint dated 10.03.2017 (Annexure P-7), praying that the land in question be not allotted to anyone, and in case the same had already been transferred, then the ownership thereof be restored in favour of the petitioners.
2.5 It has further been averred that the land in question has been wrongly projected to have been allotted to Sh. Jeet Singh (since deceased) pursuant to the order dated 24.10.2016 (Annexure P-8) passed by this Court in CWP No.22153 of 2016; whereas, vide the said order (Annexure P-8), only a direction had been issued to the competent authorities to examine the grievance raised by Sh. Jeet Singh in his legal notice and to take an appropriate decision thereupon. It is contended that without properly determining the entitlement of Sh. Jeet Singh, the authorities have wrongly alloted the land in his favour and further executed the Conveyance Deed dated 02.03.2017 (Annexure P-9), followed by sanctioning of Mutation No.3641 in the revenue record/Jamabandi for the year 2013-14 (Annexure P-10).
2.6 It is the claim of the petitioners that the State Government enacted the Punjab Allotment of State Government Land Act, 2016 (in short ‘the 20
