Punjab-Haryana High Court
Tara Chand And Anr. vs Neonand Alias Naunda And Anr. on 18 May, 2005
Equivalent citations: (2005)141PLR727
Author: Ashutosh Mohunta
Bench: Ashutosh Mohunta
JUDGMENT Ashutosh Mohunta, J.
1. The plaintiff-appellants have filed the present appeal against the judgment dated 8.1.1979 passed by Sub-Judge, Ist Class, Bhiwani, as well as the judgment dated 1.6.1984 passed by the Additional District Judge, Bhiwani by which the suit for declaration and the appeal were dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs Jeewan etc. had filed a suit for declaration for setting-aside the order and decree passed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Bhiwani dated 28.1.1976 by which the defendant-respondent was granted occupancy rights. The order of Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Bhiwani, was challenged before the Collector, Bhiwani, and Commissioner, Hisar who, also vide their orders dated 31.3.1976 and 1.9.1976 upheld the order of the Assistant Collector, IInd Grade, Bhiwani.
3. The plaintiffs are the owners of the suit land whereas defendant was a tenant under the plaintiffs. After cultivating the land of plaintiffs for a long period, the defendant-respondent filed a suit before the Assistant Collector Ist Grade for the grant of occupancy rights, which was granted by the said authority by virtue of provision of Sections 5 and 8 Punjab Tenancy Act, 1877. The appeal and the revision filed by the plaintiffs were dismissed by the Collector, Bhiwani and the Commissioner, Hisar respectively.
4. In the suit filed by the plaintiffs it was primarily contended that the revenue Court has no jurisdiction to grant occupancy rights. It was contended that the jurisdiction to grant occupancy rights under the Punjab Occupancy Tenant Act was exclusively with the Civil Court alone and jurisdiction of the revenue Courts was barred. Mr. Verma, counsel for the appellant contends that the respondent had filed a suit for grant of occupancy rights Under Section 77(3) (d) of the Punjab Tenancy Act. Learned counsel relied upon the Full Bench Judgment in Shiv Charan v. Financial Commissioner, Revenue Department, Haryana and Ors., (2004-3) 138 P.L.R. 569, wherein it was held that it is the Civil Court alone which will have the jurisdiction to determine the dispute as envisaged Under Section 77(3)(d) of the Act and the jurisdiction of revenue Court is barred.
5. Mr. Mehtani, counsel for the respondent is unable to dispute this proposition of law.
6. In view of the above and the judgment of Full Bench in Shiv Charan's case (supra) it is explicitly clear that it is only the Civil Court which will have the exclusive jurisdiction to grant occupancy rights to a tenant under the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1877 and the revenue Court has no jurisdiction to deal with such matters. Resultantly, the judgments and decrees passed by Sub-Judge Ist Class, Bhiwani, dated 8.1.1979 and Additional District Judge, Bhiwani, dated 1.6.1981 are set-aside and the appeal is accepted.
7. Consequently, the order dated 28.1.1976 passed by the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Bhiwani, in suit No. 32 as well as the order dated 31.3.1976 passed by the Collector Bhiwani and the order dated 17.9.1976 passed by the Commissioner, Hisar, are also set aside.
8. Thus, it is held that the grant of occupancy rights in favour of the respondent by the revenue authorities was bad in law, in view of the law laid down by this Court in Shiv Charan 's case (supra). However, the respondents if so advised, may approach the Civil Court for seeking appropriate relief.