AMAR SINGH JAGRAM (DEAD) BY LRS. versus CHANDGI S/O DEEP CHAND

Citation: [1988] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 738 · Decided: 02-11-1988 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.P. THAKKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
AMAR SINGH JAGRAM (DEAD) BY LRS. 
v. 
CHANDGI S/0 DEEP CHAND 
NOVEMBER 2, 1988 
[M.P. THAKKAR AND B.C. RAY, JJ.] 
East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Frag· 
mentation) Act, 1948: Sections 26, 46 and Rule 13-Allotment of land 
either to 'land owner' or 'occupancy tenant'-Rights are however trans-
ferred from the 'original holding' to the 'substituted holding' allotted to 
C landowners-Right created in favour of encumbrance holder including 
a non-occupancy tenant. 
Pursuant to consolidation proceedings Initiated under the East 
Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 
1948, a scheme of repart,ltlon was framed, and the respondent-land 
D .owner was allotted alternative lands In lieu of his original holdings. The 
appellants-tenants who were in actual possession and were actually 
cultivating prior to consolidation two different parcels of land in the 
'original holding of the land owner, as non-occupancy tenants, were not 
put back In possession of the corresponding parcels in the substituted 
lands. 
E 
The tenants initiated proceedings under section 21/26 of the Con-
solidation Act. The Consolidation Officer upheld their claim and passed 
orders on 28.4.1960 that corresponding parcels in the substituted lands 
should be restored to the tenants. 
F 
The land owner instituted two separate suits challenging the 
G 
orders of the Consolidation Officer as without jurisdiction. The trial 
court and the lower appellate court held that the Civil Courts had no 
jurisdiction to entertain the suits. In the second appeals, the High Court 
held that the Civil Courts had jurisdiction to entertain the suits, and 
rertianded the cases. 
Upon remand, the Trial Court repelled the contention of the land· 
owner that the orders passed by the Consolidation Officer were without 
jurisdiction. The Lower Appellate Court confirmed the jl}dgment and 
order of the Trial Court and, inter alia, rejected the contention of the 
land owner that the tenants should have pressed their claim when 
H 
partition and re-partition Schemes were being ·framed under Sections 
738 
AMAR SINGH v. CHANDGl 
739 
~ 
14 to 21 of the Consolidation Act. 
A 
The High Court, in second appeal, however took the view that the 
Consolidation Officer had no jurisdiction to exercise powers under sec· 
lion 26 of the Consolidation Act, that no right was created in favour of 
mortgagees, lessees or holders of encumbrances In respect of original 
holdings under section 26 read with Rule 13, and that such rights must 
B 
be determined before the scheme is confirmed and If this has not been 
done the holders of such encumbrances cannot seek any relief under 
section 26 read with rule 13 or any other provision. 
Allowing the appeals, It was, 
HELD: (1) The Act contemplates the allotment of substituted c 
!II 
lands In lieu of lands comprised in original holding on repartition only 
to two categories of landholders namely the landowners and the occu· 
pancy tenants. f748E) 
' 
(2) So far as the allotment of land is concerned it is either to the D 
"" 
'land owner' or to the 'occupancy tenant' who would under the Act 
become the owner in his own right having regard to the statutory 
provision for extinguishing the rights of the land owner In such land as 
' 
is in possession of the occupancy tenant. [748G-H) 
(3) So far as this basic scheme for allotment of the lands on E 
repartition is concerned it does not take into account any rights of 
::; 
non-occupancy tenants, mortgagees, or holders of other encumbrances 
with which the original holdings of the land owners or the occupancy 
tenants were already burdened. l748H; 749A) 
( 4) So far as non-occupancy tenants are concerned 'the only provi· F 
sion which the Legislature has designed is Section 26 relating to en· 
cumbrances of the land owners and tenants. l749AJ 
( S) So far as non-occupancy tenants or mortagees and other 
holders of encumbrances in respect of pre-repartitioned original hold· 
lngs are concerned, their rights stand transf..,-red by virtue of the G 
operation and effect of the statutory provision embodied in section 26 
Itself from the 'original holding' to the 'substituted holding' allotted to 
the land owners and the occupancy tenants under the scheme. [7SOC-D I 
(6) Section 26 has been enacted with a view to provide for a 
statutory fastening of the right which subsisted in favour of the H 
"' 
' 
740 
.SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
ll988] Supp. 3 S.C.R. 
A mortgage

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.