PREM NATH AND ORS. ETC. versus FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER AND ORS. ETC.

Citation: [1994] 1 S.C.R. 827 · Decided: 10-02-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY, G.N. RAY

Judgment (excerpt)

PREM NATH AND ORS. ETC. 
A 
v . 
...I., 
FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER AND ORS. ETC. 
FEBRUARY 10, 1994 
[K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY AND G.N. RAY, JJ.J 
B 
Delhi Land Refomis Act, 1954: Sections 2, 3, 4, 5 and 192. 
>. 
'Bhumidhar'-Wlw is. 
c 
Allottee of Evacuee Property-Tenants of allottee of evacuee proper-
ty-Suit against tenants for relief under Punjab Tenancy Act-Tenants claim 
as Bhumidhars-Held Tenants not Bhumidhars-Change of character or.. 
evacuee property held not relevant for ascertaining status of bhumid-
liars-Provisions of Delhi Land Refonns Act held in-applicable to evacuee 
property-Relief under Punjab Tenancy Act held pennissible. 
D 
.A-. 
Respondent-3 was allotted evacuee property in 1970 which he sold to 
Respondent-4. The petitioners, tenants under the respondents, had taken 
the said land on half batai basis. They stopped payment to respondents 
whereupon Respondents filed petitions for appraisement of the produce 
under the Punjab Tenancy Act which the petitioners contested on the E 
ground that they had acquired bhumidhari rights. The Trial Court dis-
missed the petitions but, on appeal, the Additional Collector negatived the 
petitioners' contention that they had become bhumidhars and held that 
the Punjab Tenancy Act was applicable. The appeals filed by the 
~...,.. 
petitioners were dismissed by the Financial Commissioner . 
F 
...I. 
The petitioners filed petitions in this Court. It was contended on 
their behalf that when once the land which was an evacuee property was 
allotted to a person, the same ceased to be an evacuee property and the 
allottee automatically became a Bhumidhar and his tenants acquired G 
Bhumidhari rights as per the protection given by the other provisions of 
the Act. Consequently, respondents could not seek eviction or any other 
relief against the petitioners under the provisions of the Punjab Tenancy 
~ -+-
Act, 1887 which were no more in force. 
On behalf on the respondents it was contended that by virtue of H 
827 
828 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1994) l S.C.R. 
A 
Section 192 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954, the Act itself was not 
applicable to the land in question since it was an evacuee property and as 
a result, only the Punjab Tenancy Act was applicable and, therefore, the 
petitioners could not claim any Bhumidhari rights in the land. 
B 
Dismissing the petitions, this Court 
HELD: 1. The language of Section 192 makes it clear that the 
provisions of the Act would not be applicable to any land which is an 
evacuee property except in respect of the lands mentioned in sub-clauses 
(1) and (2). Admittedly, the land in question does not fall under these 
C exceptions. Therefore, the question of application of the Delhi Land 
Reforms Act to the land in question does not arise since it is an evacuee 
property. [831-G] 
2. By virtue of section 2 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, the Punjab 
Tenancy Act ceases to apply to the areas to which the Delhi Land Reforms 
D Act applies and by virtue of Section 192 the Delhi Land Reforms Act is not 
E 
applicable to the lands which are evacuee properties. Consequently the 
~ 
Punjab Tenancy Act continues to apply to the evacuee properties also with 
regard to the tenancy of the land and connected matters. [835·C·E] 
3. Section 5 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act confers the status of 
Bhumidbar on persons possessing certain qualifications particularly at 
the time .of the commencement of the Act and also further lays down the 
manner in which such status can be acquired by those persons on or after 
the commencement of the Act. That being the clear scope of Section 5, it 
is not open to devise any other method of acquiring the status. The change 
F 
of character of the evacuee property later had no relevancy in ascertaining 
the status of Bhumidhar under the Act. If on the date of its commence· 
ment, the Act does not apply to the land in question, then the said Act 
would not be applicable to it any time later. Even otherwise, in the instant. 
case, respondent No. 3 was not a Bhumidhar at the date of the commen· 
G cement of the Act nor he had acquired rights of Bhumidhar as provided 
under the said Act. Therefore, the provisions of the Act would not be 
applicable since he does not come within the meaning of Bhumidhar from 
either points of view. [836-C-E] 
Umrao Singh v. Man Singh and othe1; 1968 Delhi Law Times (Vol. 4), 
H approved. 
--.,.. 
PREM NATH v. FINANCIAL COMMR. [K.J. REDDY. .I.] 
829 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special

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