Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurdawara Sahib Patshahi Naumi Guru Teg ... vs Jaggar Singh And Ors. on 9 September, 1999
Equivalent citations: (1999)123PLR577
Author: Swatanter Kumar
Bench: Swatanter Kumar
JUDGMENT Swatanter Kumar, J.
1. This revision is directed against the order dated 11th February, 1995 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sangrur, dismissing the appeal preferred by the defendant-appellant.
2. Jaggar Singh alongwith other had filed a suit for declaration to the effect that defendant No. 1 is the owner of this suit land, as recorded in the jamabandi for the year 1991-1992 and the plaintiffs are Gair Marusi tenants of the defendant No. 1. There is relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and defendant No. 1 cannot eject them on the basis of the order dated 25th October, 1994 passed by the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Sangrur, as the said order is without jurisdiction. The order was passed under Section 122 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act. Further they had prayed for ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants from dispossessing them from the suit land.
3. The suit was contested by the defendants, who raised preliminary objection with regard to the very maintainability of the suit. It was further averred that as per the order of the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Sangrur, dated 25th October, 1994,they were entitled to take possession of the land in execution of the said order. They claim to be taking possession in furtherance to the said decree.
4. Learned trial Court granted ad-interim injunction to the plaintiffs, finding the basic ingredients in their favour, vide order dated 30th November, 1994. This order was assailed in appeal, of course, unsuccessfully by the defendant before the learned first appellate Court giving rise to the present petition.
5. The learned Courts below have come to a concurrent prima facie view that in the jamabandi for the year 1971-1972, one Sham Kaur was recorded as owner to the extent of 1/2 share of the land in dispute and Jaggar Singh and Bhajan Singh were recorded as in possession of the part of the land measuring 24 kanals 10 marlas as tenants under Smt. Sham Kaur. Plaintiffs 2 to 8 were in possession of the land as successor of Bhajan Singh. In the copy of the jamabandi for the year 1991-92 Bhajan Singh and Jaggar Singh have been recorded as tenants under Sham Kaur in the part of the lane) in question. The plaintiffs had also filed on record the copies of the judgments dated 24.11.1993 and 26.10.1997 passed in previous suits, being Suit No. 122 of 1988 and 133 of 1976 filed by Bhajan Singh and Jaggar Singh against Sham Kaur for a decree of injunction restraining Sham Kaur from dispossessing them from the land in question except in due course of law. The suits were decreed. In the face of the above position emerging from the record, it is clear that the provisions of Section 122 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act would not be applicable at least prima facie. The learned courts below came to the conclusion that the provisions of Section 39 to 41 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 read with Section 42 of the Act give a complete protection to a tenant, who cannot be ejected except for the procedure prescribed therein.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents relied upon the cases of Secretary to Government Ministry of Home Affairs, Punjab, Chandigarh and Ors. v. Krishan Kumar and Ors., (1985-2) 88 P.L.R. 535 and Indian Oil Corporation Limited v. Uppal Engineering Pvt. Limited and Anr., 1991 P.LJ 554, to contend that this revision itself was not maintainable.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the case of Rawat Ram v. Havita Shree and Ors., (1998-3)121 P.L.R. 798 to argue that the order dated 25.10.1994 passed by the department could not be subject matter of adjudication before the Civil Court.
8. The scope of revisional jurisdiction of this Court is well defined. It is true that unless the Court has committed an error apparent on the face of the record or there is material irregularity and illegality in the order therein, the Court would not interfere merely for the reasons that another view was possible. The facts of Rawat Ram's case (supra) were totally different and distinct. In that case, the parties had accepted the jurisdiction of the revenue authorities and had preferred a revision which had attained the finality between the parties. Furthermore, the question was basically, whether the Court should pass order of return of plaint. The said principle has no application to the present case. The courts below have come to a concurrent view the no order under Section 122 of the Land Revenue Act, could have been passed, in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The said view taken by the learned Courts below does not appear to be erroneous or suffers from any material irregularities. There is overwhelming evidence to take a prima facie view that the plaintiffs were the original tenants under Sham Kaur in the land of which she was the owner. Thus, it cannot termed as a allocation of share of land by partition to an owner or tenant.
9. For the aforestated reasons, I find no merit in this revision petition and the same is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
10. Any observations made in this order would not effect the merits of the case.