MOHAN LAL versus KARTAR SINGH AND ORS.

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 410 · Decided: 17-10-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, S.C. SEN, G.T. NANAVATI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
MOHAN LAL 
v. 
KARTAR SINGH AND ORS. 
OCTOBER 17, 1995 
[B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, S.C. SEN AND G.T. NANAVATI, J.J.J 
Pepsu Te11a11cy a11d Ab•icultural Lands Act, 1955-Seclio11s 43 and 
47-Protection of tenancy lights a11d land refvnns-Cases of 1111/awful and 
unauthmised possession of land-Ambit of jwisdiction of Co/lect01~Scope 
of mquily-Jurisdiction of Civil Cowt bmTed. 
Father of the respondents, original plaintiff filed a suit for posses-
sion of the suit land on the basis of ownership of the land and also on the 
ground that the order of eviction passed against him by the Collector u/s 
D 43 of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955, was void and 
ineffective. His case was that he had purchased the suit land from one S 
in 1955. At that time, the appellant, original defendant was in occupation 
of that land as tenant and he continued to hold the land as his tenant after 
the sale; that some time in June 1955, he approached the Village Panchayat 
E 
F 
G 
as the appellant had not given him his share in the produce; that on 
16-6-1955 a compromise was arrived at between him and the appellant 
whereundcr appellant had agreed to relinquish possession of the land as 
he was not able to pay the rent and on his part he had agreed not to recover 
the share/rent; that pursuant to the compromise the Panchayat also 
passed a resolution to th.at effect and appellant willingly handed over 
possession of land to hin1; that \Vi thin 5 da)'S of' the corn promise appellant 
approached the SDM of that area and alleged that he was forcibly dispos-
sessed and claimed restoration of possession u/s 43 of the Act; that the 
SDM rejected that application as not maintainable; that soon after the 
SDM was invested with the power appellant had again applied to him and 
on 12-5-1962 the SDM allowed that application and passed on order for 
his eviction; that appellant got back possession of the land under that 
order; that he tiled an appeal to the Commissioner which was dismissed, 
his revision to the financial Commissioner was also rejected, and a writ 
petition in the High Court was also dismissed. He pleaded that as the 
order passed by the SDM was without jurisdiction and, therefore, void ab 
H initio, earlier proceedings under the Act were no bar to his filing the suit. 
410 
MOHAN LAL v. KARTAR SINGH 
411 
The Civil Judge decreed the suit believing the version of the plaintiff A 
that appt'llant had voluntarily surrendered his possession and, therefore, 
held that the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties had 
come to an end and for that reason the Sub-Divisional Magistrate had no 
jurisdiction to pass an order of eviction u/s 43 of the Act. Appellant filed 
an appeal to the District Court which was dismissed. A second appeal filed 
in the High Court was allowed and plaintill's suit was dismissed. The 
Single Judge alter considering the beneficent object of the Act and its 
material provision held that those provisions should be liberally con-
strued; that the Act is a complete Code in itself and provides for a complete 
machinery for decision of a dispute; that it was open to the Collector while 
dealing with an application u/s 43 to go into the disputed <1uestions like 
whether the dispossession of the tenant was illegal and whether the com-
promise was entered into by the tenant voluntarily or under duress; that 
the language used in section 43 shows that the legislature by necessary 
intendment, if not expressly, has given to the collector the power to elll1uire 
B 
c 
not only into the question whether the person concerned is liable to be D 
ejected on the basis of certain facts aduYtted or already proved before the 
Civil Court but also into the existence of those fact, i.e., it was open to the 
Collector to decide the disputed question namely whether the compromise 
pleaded by the land owner was entered into voluntarily or under duress 
and as he found on ent1uiry that the compromise was arrived at under 
duress and, therefore, possession of the land owner was unlawful, the E 
· jurisdiction of the Civil Court was barred in respect of that matter, by 
virtue of section 47 of the Act. 
In Letters Patent Appeal filed by the plaintiff the High Court set 
aside th~ order passed b,y the Single Judge holding that as possession \\'3S 
F 
handed over by the appellant in vie"' of the compromise, plaintitl's posses-
sion was, pn·nia facie, neither unla"ful nor opposed to the provisions of 
the Act; tha

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