STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. versus BHAI ARDAMAN SINGH & ORS. ETC.

Citation: [1969] 1 S.C.R. 283 · Decided: 03-05-1968 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.C. SHAH · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
• 
' 
B 
c 
D 
• 
E 
• 
F 
• 
G 
• 
H 
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. 
V • 
BUAi ARDAMAN SINGH & ORS. ETC. 
May 3, 1968 
[J. C. SHAH AND V. BHARGAVA, JJ.) 
Pepsu Tenancy and AgriculturG'[ Act 8 of 1953, s. 43(1)(b)-scope 
of--if has retrospective operation conditions precedent for exercise of 
jurisdiction by collector-whether order can be passed on subjective safis .. 
faction or on judicial deternzination. 
Certain tenants of land applied to the Collector, Sangrur and Bhatinda, 
alleging that they had been forcibly deprived of the lands in May /June, 
1943 and sought an order for restoration of possession under s. 43 of the 
Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Act 8 of 1953. 
The Collector granted 
the applications and ordered possession to be restored to the tenants. His 
orders were confi'rmed by the Commissioner who was of the view that 
an order under s. 43 could be passed by the Collector on his subjective 
satisfaction that a person was in wrongful or unauthorised possession of 
land. 
The Financial Commissioner also, confirmed the orders on the 
g'round that substantial justice had been done by the subordinate revenue 
authorities. 
The first respondent challenged these orders by a writ petition but this 
was dismissed by a Single Bench holding 
that the Act 8 of 1953 
was 
a code in itself and provided for a complete machinery for the decision 
of disputes like the resent one. 
But a Division Bench in appeal allowed 
the petition and held that Act 8 of 1953 which came into force 
on 
December 13, 1953, had no retrospe~tive operation. 
On appeal to this Court 
HELD, dismissing the appeals : 
(i) Apart from the allegation of the tenants that the first respondent 
was in wrongful or unauthorised possession of the lands previously occu~ 
pied by them, it was further necessary to establish that under cl. (b) of 
s. 43 (I) the petson in wrongful or unauthorisP....d possession was 
not 
'entitled to the use and occupation of the lands under the provisions of 
the Act. 
There was no provision which disentitled the first 'respondent 
to the use and occupation of the lands. 
Section 43(1) (b) therefore had 
no application in the present case. The condition precedent to the invest-
ment of jurisdiction in the Collector being absent, the revenue authorities 
had no power to pass the order in ejectment which they 
purported to 
p·ass. 
· 
(ii) The proceedings of the Collector are judicial in character and 
although the trial is summary, the Collector is bound to exercise the 
jurisdiction vested in him not on a subjective satisfaction, as the Commis-
sioner assumed, but on a judicial determination of facts which invest him 
with iurisdiction to pass an order in ejectment. 
When the condition 
precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction does not exist the Collector cannot 
clothe himself with authority to pas·s the impugned orders. Furthe'rmore, 
the High Court had rightly held the terms of cl. (b), s. 43 (I) had no 
retrospective operation. 
(iii) If the Collector had no jurisdiction except in the special condition 
prescribed by s. 43, his order could not be sustained merely because 
284 
SUPRE:.IE COURT REPORTS 
fl 969] I S.C.R. 
another <tuthorily ma\', if th~ proceeding \\·ere before that authority. on 
the findings recorded. have k'Tantcd relief to the tenants of restoration 
to posscssiun of their respective landc:;, 
Authorities which arc vested with 
powers-judicial or quasi-judicial-can exercise their pO\vcr "·ithin 
the 
1imils of lhc'ir jurisdiciion and their actions without jurisdiction cannot 
be sustained n1crcly b~causc another bodv or authority, which if lawfully 
approached, may have jurisdiction to pass the order complained of. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos. 1016 
to 1050, I 052 to 1075 and I 077 to 1084 of 1964. 
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated 
May 14, 1959 of the Punjab High Court in L. P. Appeal No. 148 
of 1968 etc. 
N. S. Bindra and R. N. Sachrhey. for the appellant. 
M. C. ChaRla and R. V. Pillai, for the respondents. 
'The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Shah, J. 
In this group of appeals the dispute relates to agri-
cultural lands situate in village Dialpura-Bhaika, District Bhatinda 
in the former State of Pcpsu and now in the State of Punjab. The 
lands originally belonged to Bhai Arjan Singh. On his death in 
1946 the lands devolved upon his son Rhai Ardaman Singh, the 
first respondent in these appeals. Alleging that Bhai Arjan Sin)lh 
forcibly 

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