LexDASAUDHA SINGH & ORS. ETC. ETC. versus STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
:a 006 DASAUDHA SINGH & ORS. ETC. ETC. v. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. November 16, 1972 (With connected appeals) [A. N. GROVER, K. K. MATHEW AND A. K. MUKHERJEA, Ji.J East Pun;ab Utilisation of Lands A.ct 1949-Ss. 7 and 11-Scope- Whtthtr afttr .th.e expiry of the lease the owntl' can get back liis propcrty- Power of the Collector under S. 7(1 )-Wlwher eviction possible onlv under Pun/ab Tenancy A.ct. · A B Section 7 of the East Punjab Utilisation of Lands Act 1949, provides c 'that wbero any land taken possession of by the Collector under Section 3 is, on the expiry of the lease to be returned to the owner, the Collector may, after enquiry, specify by order in writing, the person to whom pos· UISlion of the land shall be given and that delivery of possession of land shall be a full discharge of the Collector of all liability etc. Further where the right person cannot be found, the Collector shall aftlx a notice on the land declaring it to have been released. After such a notice, the Collector or the Government shall uot be liable for nny compensation. D Section 11 provides that the Collector may use force 'for enforcing- his order made under this Act. In the appeals, the main question for detern1ination was the scope, ambit and interpretation of S. 7 read with S. 11 of the Act. It waa con- tended by the appellants that under S. 7, the Collector had no po9•er to evict a lessee after the expiry of the lease. For that purpose resort must be had to the provisions of the Punjab Tenancy Act 1887, of the Oenerai E Lav:. Dismissing the appeal, HELD : ( 1) Section 7 (!) of the Act cannot be read in isolation, but bas to' be interpreted in the light of the purpose and scheme of the Act as also the other relevant provisions. The sole purpose for which the Act wu enacted was to ensure that such lands as were capable of producing food or fodder but which owing to the neglect on the part of the owners were not beina C'Ultivated, are utilised for cultivation. Under S. 3, the Collector is empowered to take possession of any cultivable land which remained fallow for the last six or more harvests. The Collector was to give a lease for the minimum period Of 7 years, but not more thaa 20 years. The tenant, however, knew beforehand that on the expiry of the period of the lease, he would have to surrender possession to the owner. The Act, '"'where contemplated that tl:e owner should be completely depfr:ed of his ownership right. The compensation to which he was en· !.'l!«i under s. 4 was for the temporary deprivation of the exercise of hi< ow,ltrsliip rights. [101 I Hl F (ii) Section 7(1) when read in the context clearly shows that it was H intended to empower the Collector to make an order in writing after the ' expiry of the lease saying that tM ·possession of the land shaU be given to the person named or specified in the order. The words. "to whom pos· session of land shall be given' contained the mandate under which the A B c D E F G DASAUDHA SINGH v. HARYANA (Grover, J.) 1001· Collector derived powers of directing that the possession of the land was. IO be given by the tooant to the owner whose name was •pecified in the Collector's order. If the tenant did not comply with the order or direction made under s. 7, the Collector could use such steps or force as was nece•- •111)' for compliance with the order. (1013 CJ (iii)-The answer to the question that eviction could take place OLiy under the Tenancy Act or the general Jaw, and not under Section 7(1) di. the Act, is that tl:le East Punjab Utilisation of Lands Act 1949 WM intended to be exhaustive for the purpose for which it was enacted. It is hardly possible to regard a tenant of the Collector under the Act as falling within the definition of a 'tenant' under the Tenancy Act. The whole purpose of the Act would be defeated if the provisions of the Tenancy Act were made applicable to it. If that were the intention, tM Tenancy Act were made applicable to it. If that were the intention, the legislature would have provided for it. As regards compensation, no pro- vision has been made in the Act for payment of any compensation for gr<:at hardship by being asked to give up all lands, but that hardship could to alleviated, or some relief given by the legislature alone. [1016 HJ ClvtL APPELLATE JUR1so1cTION : Civil Appeals Nos. 825- 831 & 956 & 823/1972. Civil Appeals Nos. 825-831 & 956 of 1971. Appeals by
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.