INDER SINGH AND ANR. versus THE FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER, PUNJAB AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 7 S.C.R. 421 · Decided: 10-10-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

INDER SINGH AND ANR. 
A 
v. 
THE FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER, PUNJAB AND ORS. 
OCTOBER 19, 1996 
[K. RAMASWAMY ANJ? G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.) 
B 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 : 
S.11-Res judicat~Tenants' application made u/s.22 of Pepsu Tenan-
cy Agricultµral Lands Act, 1955 rejected in 1960 on the ground that he did C 
not have possession for 12 years-Tenants' second application u/s.22 filed in 
1965 allowed and the decision upheld upto the stage of revision before 
Financial Commissioner-High cdurt set aside the orders of revenue 
authorities on the ground that second application u/s.22 was bamd by the 
principle of res judicata-'--Held the order passed by the authorities is without D 
any elaborate trial like in a suit but in a summary manner-Doctrine of of 
res judicata envisaged in Section 11 has no application to summary proceed-
ings unless the statute expressly applies to such orders-The authorities are 
not civil court nor the petition a plaint, no issues are framed nor tried as a 
civil suit-High Court erred in concluding that the earlier proceedings operated 
as' res judicat~Judgment of High Court set aside and that of the authorities E 
restored. 
Patiala Punjab State Union Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 
1953/Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Ac~ 1955. 
. S.7A!Ss.2(k), 20 and 22-Tenant-Right to purchase proprietary rights 
over the land in tenancy-Landlord's application for reservation of land for 
personal cultivation rejected-Held, in order to exercise the right under s.22 
F 
the claimant must be a tenant under the Punjab Tenancy Act, he was in 
possession of land as on predecessor in title and he must have continuous 
possession for 12 years before exercising the right to purchase proprietary G 
rights-Appellants have satisfied the requirements and have acquired the right 
to purchase the proprietary interests of the land held by them as tenant~They 
are not liable to ejectment. 
Jajsi Ram v. Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab & Ors., AIR H 
421 
422 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 7 S.C.R. 
A (1972) Punjab and Haryana 72, cited. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1920 of 
1980. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 5.3.80 of the Punjab & Haryana 
B High Court, in C.W.P. No. 1592 of 1967. 
· Ujagar Singh, Davender Verma, Girish Sharma and Naresh Bakshi 
for the Appellants. 
C 
A.B. Rohtagi and Uma Datta for the Respondents. 
:D 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
. This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the Punjab _ 
and Haryana High Court dated March 5, 1980 made in Civil Writ Petition 
No. 1592 of 1967. 
The admitted facts ar1< that the appellants/tenants were in possession 
of the land bearing specified Khasra numbers mentioned in the appellate 
order {the details of which are not in dispute), admeasuring 190 kanals, 6 
E marlas in Village Kotrani in Kapurthala District of Punjab. His applicatior1 
made under Section 22 of the PepsU Tenancy Agricultural Lands Act, 1955 
{for short, the 'Act') was rejected by order dated April 25, 1960 on the 
ground that they did not have possession for 12 years which was confirmed 
by all the authorities including the High Court in the Writ Petition Oii. 
September· 7, 1964. Subsequently, they made second application on March 
26, 1965 for conferment. of ownership rights based on tenancy from the 
res pendents. Similarly, the landlord filed an application for reservation of 
the land for personal cultivation. The authorities have dismissed the ap-
plication of the landlord for reservation of the land which order became 
final. The applicatio'l ofth.e appellants was allowed on December 15, 1%5. 
G On appeal, it was confirmed on June 22, 1996. In revision, the Financial 
Commissioner by order dated· June 15, 1967 confirmed the same. In the 
writ petition, by the impugned judgment the Division Bench set aside the 
. orders of the authorities on the sole ground that the orders passed on the 
earlier occasion culminated as res judicata 
and, therefore the second 
H application under Section 22 is not maintainable. 
, 
INDER SINGH v. HNANCIAL COMMNR. 
423 
Shri Ujagar Singh, learned senior counsel for the appellants con-
A 
tended that the view taken by the High Court is not correct in law. Since 
the proceedings before the authorities is of summary nature, the doctrine 
of res judicata has no application. The act does not prescribe any prin-
ciple of res judicata as such. The proceedings before the authorities are 
o

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