PARMANAND SINGH (D) THR. LRS. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

Citation: [2017] 14 S.C.R. 582 · Decided: 31-08-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.F. NARIMAN, SANJAY KISHAN KAUL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
(2017] 14 S.C.R. 582 
PARMANAND SINGH (D) THR. LRS. 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 7183 of2008) 
AUGUST 31,2017 
[R. .F. NARIMAN AND SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, JJ.] 
United Provinces Tenancy Act.1939-s.180- Case of appellant 
that his ancestors were zamindars and were in possession of the 
C disputed land since 1930 :_Jn 1974. proceedings were initiated 
against the appellants uls.122-B of the U.P. Zamindari Act on the 
ground that the said land belonged to the State Government and 
the Gaon Sabha and therefore appellants ought to he evicted -
Howeve1: thereafter proceedings under U.P. Zamindari Act were 
dropped and proceedings 11/s. I 80 of t~e U.P. Tenancy Act were 
D initiated against the appella1.1ts - During the pendency of the suit ul 
s.180. a show cause notice was issued by the Defence Estate Officer 
under the Public Premises Eviction Act u!s.4(1) -_Appellant replied 
to the said notice - However. without giving any reason as to why 
the reply was not acceptable. an order uls. 5(1) of the Public Premises 
'E 
Eviction Act was made to evict the appellants from the said premises -
Meanwhile. the State Government dismissed the suit u/s.180 in 
default - Writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed - On 
appeal. held: Once suit u!s. I 80 of the Act is dismissed for non-
prosecution. the provisions of s. I 80(2) activates. under which. if 
no suit is brought under the section, which must also he understood 
F as a suit being brought and dismissed in default, the person in 
possession shall become a hereditary tenant of such plot - The effect 
in law. therefore, of the dismissal for default of suit u/s. I 80 is that 
the status of appellant is that of a hereditary tenant - This being the 
case. the foundational jurisdictional fact of the appellant being an 
G unauthorised occupant in order to attract the provisions of the Public 
Premises Act is lacking - Respondents directed to give the possession 
hack to appellant - Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized 
Occupants) Act. 1971 - ss.4 (lnd 5 - U.P. Zamindari Act - s.122-B. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
H 
HELD: 1.1 The suit was filed by the State Government on 
582 
PARMANAND ~l'.'\GH (D) THR. LRS. v. UNION OF INDIA 
583 · 
AND ANR. 
behalf of the Union on the footing that the non-occupancy tenant 
A 
retained the possession of the plot of land without the consent of 
the Union, and that, therefore, he was liable to cjcctment and to 
pay damages. Once that suit is dismissed for non-prosecution, 
the provisions of Section 180(2) of the U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939 
kick in. Under this sub-section, if no suit is brought under the 
B 
Section, which must also be understood as a suit being brought 
arid dismissed in default, the person iit possession shall become 
a hereditary tenant of such plot. The effect in law, therefore, of 
the dismissal for default of suit u/s.180 is that the appellant's 
status is that ot' a hereditary tenant. This being the case, the 
foundational jurisdictional fact of the appellant being an C 
unauthorised occupant in order to .attract the provisions of the 
Public Premises Act is lacking. As this is so, all the orders that 
have been passed by the author.ities as well as the High Court 
arc without jurisdiction. [Pata 10] [558-C-F] 
· 1.2 This being the case, it is important to do complete justice 
D 
between all the parties. Since, it appears that some portion of the 
appl!llants' 5 acres may be in the possession of the ex-servicemen 
as· lessees of t.hc Union of lrtdfa, it Is directed as follows:-
1) The khatauni numbers contained at pages 14 and 15 of 
the paper book shall be handed back to the appellants, If E 
they are not in possession of these khatauni numbers 
already. If the appellantis in part possession, then the 
part of which they arc not in possession shall be handed 
back by the respondents within a period of twelve weeks. 
(Para Hl) (588-F-G] 
2) If it is necessary to displace the ex-servicemen from 
some part or the entirety of their property in order to hand 
back the land b~longing to the appellants, the Union of 
India will see to it that equivalent land with an equivalent 
F 
· lease will be made available to the ex-servicemen, which 
should also be done within a period of twelve weeks 
G 
granted. [Para 10] [588~H; 589~A] · 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 7183 of 
2008. 
H 
584 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2017) 14 S.C.R. 
A 
From the Judgment and final Order dated 02.09.2005 pass
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.