Punjab-Haryana High Court
Yad Ram And Ors. vs Ram Lal And Ors. on 1 April, 1992
Equivalent citations: (1992)102PLR604
JUDGMENT N.K. Kapoor, J.
1. This plaintiffs' appeal against the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, Gurgaon, whereby the suit decreed by the trial court was reversed in appeal.
2. The plaintiffs filed suit under Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the allegation that land comprised in khewat Nos. 392 to 394 measuring 126 kanals 2 marlas as per details given in Schedule 'B' of the plaint is recorded as owned by Shamlat Patti Bhawani Singh 'Hasab Rasad Qabza Zamin' as per entries in the jamabandi for the years 1966-1967, The plaintiffs further averred that the defendants and other persons mentioned in the list 'A' attached to the plaint are owners /co-sharers and thus entitled to get the same partitioned. On an application filed before the Assistant Collector I Grade to get the joint land partitioned, question of title was raised and so the parties were directed to get it determined by a court of competent jurisdiction. Hence this suit
3. Basis of the claim of the plaintiffs is that they were occupancy tenants and became owners of the land in their possession in view of the Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act, 1951, and thus, have become co-sharers and entitled to claim a share in respect of shamlat land corresponding to the land in their ownership
4. Defendants No. 1 to 4 filed a written statement and raised preliminary objections, i e., the suit is barred by time; that all those persons who were necessary parties have not been included in the list appended with the plaint. On merits, it was stated that there are other persons who were also owners in the Shamlat Patti, but their names have not been mentioned in the list.
5. Some other defendants also filed written statement and pleaded that Shamlat Deh in State of Haryana vests in the Gram Panchayat/Notified Area Committee. They further averred that a part of shamlat land belonged to Muslim Biswedars whose share now is owned by Union of India, which is also a necessary party. They further challenged the right of the plaintiff to seek the partition or the declaration.
6. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :-
1. Whether the plaintiffs are co-sharers in Patti Bhawani Singh and are entitled to get the suit land partitioned ? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the suit? OPD 3 Whether the suit is time barred ? OPD
4. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of the necessary parties? OPD
5. Whether some Muslims are necessary parties in this suit ? If so, whether the President of India is a necessary party in the suit? OPD
6. Whether the suit land vests in the Notified Area Committee, Sohna ? If so, to what effect ?
7. Relief.
7. The trial Court decided issues No. 1 and 2 in favour of the plaintiffs. Issue No. 3 was also found in favour of the plaintiffs. Issues No. 4 and 6 were discussed together and decided in favour of the plaintiffs. Finding in respect of issue No. 5 was against the defendants. In view of the findings on the above mentioned issues, the suit of the plaintiffs was decreed as prayed for.
8. Before the appellate Court, the findings recorded by the trial Court were assailed on the ground that the plaintiffs who were occupancy tenants acquired the status as proprietors by virtue of the Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act, 1951 (President's Act No. VIII of 1951) which Act did not envisage acquisition of share in the shamlat land corresponding to the land in their possession and thus, the plaintiffs cannot in law be deemed to be co-sharers in the land of Shamlat Patti Bhawani Singh. Reference was made to mutation sanctioned in favour of the plaintiff, which too made mention of Act No. VIII of 1951. The lower appellate Court after referring to Section 3 the President's Act No. VIII of 1951 came to the conclusion that the claim of the plaintiffs with regard to share in the shamlat land is without any basis. The lower appellate Court further held that Section 3 of the Act No. 8 of 1953 whereby right of occupany tenants to a share in the shamlat land with respect to the land concerned of the landlord cannot be construed retrospectively so as to give benefit to the plaintiffs. Resultantly, the judgment and decree of the trial court was reversed.
9. The sole question which has been urged by the learned counsel for the appellants is as to whether the plaintiffs having acquired the proprietary rights in respect of the land in their occupation as occupancy tenants, acquired corresponding right in the shamlat land as well and whether sanctioning of mutation in their favour as per provisions of the President's Act No. VIII of 1951 debars them from seeking the declaration that they have a share in the shamlat land corresponding to their holding. Before examining the matter, it would be pertinent to note that sometime in March 1949, a Land Reforms Committee was appointed by the Government to examine the tenancy legislation in force in this State and to suggest ways and means to ameliorate the economic condition of tenants. The Committee made the recommendation that occupancy tenants should be given proprietary rights in their tenancies on payment of suitable compensation. The Committee also felt that because of the tension prevailing between occupancy tenants and their landlord neither the tenant nor the landlord was in a position to develop the land to its utmost. Since the State Legislature was suspended, the President of the Union enacted the Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act, 1951 which came into force on 15th June, 1952.
10. Section 3 of the President's Act No. VIII of 1951 reads as follows :-
"3. Vesting of Proprietary Rights in occupancy tenants and extinguishment of corresponding rights of the landlord.
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any law, custom or usage for the time being in force on and from the appointed day- (a) all rights, title and interest, (including the contingent interest, if any, recognised by any law, custom or usage for the time being in force of the landlord in the land held under him by an occupancy tenant shall be extinguished and such rights, title and interest shall be deemed to vest in the occupancy tenant free from all encumbrances, if any, in the land created by the landlord)."
11. This Act was subsequently enacted as the State Legislature was in Sessions and while enacting the same, it was slightly modified, that is to enable the occupancy tenant to acquire proprietary rights in the shamlat land also. This Act, the Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act, 1952 (Punjab Act No. 8 of 1953), as per Section 1 sub-clause (3) came into force on 15th June, 1952. Section 3 of the Act reads as follows :
"3. Vesting of proprietary rights in occupancy tenants and extinguishment of corresponding rights of landlords.-Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any law, custom or usage for the time being in force, on and from the appointed day- (a) all rights, title and interest (including the contingent interest, if any, recognized by any law, custom or usage for the time being in force and including the share in the Shamlat with respect to the land concerned) of the landlord in the land held under him by an occupancy tenant, shall be extinguished, and such rights, title and interest shall be deemed to vest in the occupancy tenant free from all encumbrances if any, created by the landlord ;
X X X X".
12. The President's Act No. VIII of 1951 came into force on 15-6-1952, whereas the Punjab Act No. 8 of 1953 came inso force on 15th June, 1952. Admittedly, under Act No. VIII of 1953 occupancy tenants were conferred proprietary rights in respect of the land under their occupation free from all encumbrances, if any, created by the landlord as well as share in the shamlat with respect to the land concerned of the landlord in the land held under him by an occupancy tenant. As per evidence, mutations conferring proprietary rights were sanctioned on 24-11-1952. Admittedly, Act No. VIII of 1953 which came into force from 16th June, 1952 and President's Act No. VIII of 1951 stood repealed by Section 13 of the Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act, 1952. This being the position, the appellate Court's observation that mutation Exhibits D-l to D-34 were sanctioned in favour of the plaintiffs under President's Act No. VIII of 1951 and so the plaintiffs were debarred from claiming a share in the shamilat land is wholly perverse. Act No. 8 of 1953 had already come into force on 16-6 1952 and reference to President's Act No. VIII of 1951 in the Registrar of Mutations cannot be so construed as taking away their rights in respect of their share in shamilat land.
13. The plea of the respondents that Act No. 8 of 1953 was enacted only to apply in future cases does not appeal to reason. The President's Act No. VIII of 1951 was enacted since the State Legislature was suspended and as soon as the State Legislature came into being the present Act, i.e., Act No. VIII of 1953 was enacted with slight modification entitling occupancy tenants to acquire share in the shamilat land also as per Section 3 of the Act (Act No. 8 of 1953).
14. I accordingly accept this appeal, set aside the impugned judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court and affirm the judgment and decree of the trial Court. In the circumstances, the parties are, however, left to bear their own costs,