Skip to content


Faqiria and ors. Vs. Mt. Rajo and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On
Case NumberSecond Appeal No. 345 of 1955
Judge
Reported inAIR1957P& H79
ActsTenancy Law; Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act, 1952 - Sections 3 and 5;
AppellantFaqiria and ors.
RespondentMt. Rajo and anr.
Appellant Advocate M.L. Sethi, Adv.
Respondent Advocate Yash Pal Gandhi, Adv.
DispositionAppeal dismissed
Cases ReferredIn Sangat Singh v. Ishar Singh
Excerpt:
- sections 100-a [as inserted by act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & letters patent, 1865, clause 10: [dr. b.s. chauhan, cj, l. mohapatra & a.s. naidu, jj] letters patent appeal order of single judge of high court passed while deciding matters filed under order 43, rule1 of c.p.c., - held, after introduction of section 110a in the c.p.c., by 2002 amendment act, no letters patent appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a single judge of a high court. a right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. it is pertinent to note that section 100-a introduced by 2002 amendment of the code starts with a non obstante clause. the purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the..........position of matters, all rights, title and interest of the landlord in the land held under him by wazira occupancy tenant were extinguished on 15-6-1952.5. in civil suit no. 159 of 1854, one of the points that arose for decision was whether the land which became the property of wazira on 15-8-1952 was the self-acquired property of wazira.6. from a perusal of section 3 of the act it is plain that wazira was to pay such compensation to the landlord as may be determined under section 3 (d) of the act.7. in approaching the matter it is to be seen that bhupa, father of wazira, was not the owner of the property in suit. on 15-6-1952 by operation of law, wazira became the owner of the property subject to payment of such compensation as may be fixed by the government. if so, wazira was the.....
Judgment:

Harnam Singh, J.

1. In the Jamabandl of 1945-46, Wazira son of Bhupa was shown to be the occupancy tenant under Section 5 of the Punjab Tenancy Act 16 of 1887.

2. On 15-6-1953, the Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act, 1952 hereinafter called the Act, came into force in the Pun-Jab State.

3. Section 3 of the Act provided;

'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 interests (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;

(b) the landlord shall cease to have any right to collect or receive any rent or any share of the land revenue in respect of such land and his liability to pay land revenue in respect of the land shall also cease;

(c) the occupancy tenant shall pay direct to the Government the land revenue accruing due in respect of the land;

(d) the occupancy tenant shall be liable to pay, and the landlord concerned shall be entitled to receive and be paid, such compensation as may be determined under this Act.'

4. That being the position of matters, all rights, title and interest of the landlord in the land held under him by Wazira occupancy tenant were extinguished on 15-6-1952.

5. In Civil suit No. 159 of 1854, one of the points that arose for decision was whether the land which became the property of Wazira on 15-8-1952 was the self-acquired property of Wazira.

6. From a perusal of Section 3 of the Act it is plain that Wazira was to pay such compensation to the landlord as may be determined under Section 3 (d) of the Act.

7. In approaching the matter it is to be seen that Bhupa, father of Wazira, was not the owner of the property in suit. On 15-6-1952 by operation of law, Wazira became the owner of the property subject to payment of such compensation as may be fixed by the Government. If so, Wazira was the first person who had acquired ownership rights in the land,

8. In Sangat Singh v. Ishar Singh, AIR 1927 Lah 536 (1) (A), the facts were these: Jassa common ancestor occupied the land as occupancy tenant but the rights of the landlord were purchased by Ban Singh last male holder. On those facts Shadi Lal, C. J. and Jai Lal, J., observed:

'* * * We find that though the common ancestor Jassa occupied the land as an occupancy tenant, the rights of the landlord were purchased by Ran Singh himself. The occupancy rights, therefore, merged in the proprietary rights, and the learned counsel for the appellants hag not been able to cite to us any authority in support ofhis contention that the property should in these circumstances, be treated to be ancestral property.'

9. In my Judgment the decision given by the Senior Sub Judge does not suffer from any legal error.

10. In the result, Regular Second Appeal No. 845 of 1955 fails and is hereby dismissed.

11. Having regard to the fact that this is the first case under Section 3 of the Act that has come to this Court, I leave the parties to bear their own costs throughout,


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //