LexTARA CHAND & ORS. versus GRAM PANCHAYAT JHUPA KHURD & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2012] 10 S.C.R. 974 TARA CHAND & ORS. v. GRAM PANCHAYAT JHUPA KHURD & ORS. (Civil Appeal Nos. 8845-8850 of 2003) NOVEMBER 6, 2012 [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, JJ.] Land Laws - Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 - ss.5, 8 and 10 C - Suit filed in 1989 for declaration of occupancy rights u/ss.5 and 8 of the Act, in relation to the land in dispute - The plaintiffs-appellants and their ancestors were hisedars/joint owners/co-sharers in the shamifat deh from a period prior to even 1935-36 - High Court found the appellants non-suited D on the anvil of s.10, observing that the expression 'any person', contained in s.8, does not include a joint-owner (hisedar) - On appeal, held: s. 10 puts a complete embargo on a hisedar/joint-owner to claim occupancy rights - There was no agreement between the appellants and Gram Panchyat E creating any tenancy in their favour - Granting relief to the appellants would amount to ignoring the existence of s. 10 itself and it would be against all norms of interpretation which requires that statutory provisions must be interpreted in such a manner as not to render any of its provision otiose unless F there are compelling reasons for the court to resort to that extreme contingent - No cogent reason to interfere with the well-reasoned judgment of the High Court - Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 - ss. 4(3)(ii) and 7. G H Words and Phrases - "any person" - Meaning of. In the year 1989, the appellants/their predecessors- in-interest filed suit for declaration of their occupancy rights, under Sections 5 and 8 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 in relation to the land in dispute. The Court of First 974 TARA CHAND & ORS. v. GRAM PANCHAYAT JHUPA 975 KHURD & ORS. Instance i.e. the Assistant Collector allowed the suit A holding that the appellants/plaintiffs fulfilled all the conditions of Sections 5 and 8 of the Tenancy Act, owing to the fact that they had. been in uninterrupted possession of the land for a very long time and had also been cultivating the said land continuously, paying B nominal rent to the Gram Panchayat, much before the commencement of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, and hence, the provisions of Section 7 of the Act 1961 were not attracted and that they were, therefore, in fact entitled to the declaration as c sought by them. Aggrieved, the Gram Panchayat- defendant, filed appeal before the District Collector, which allowed the same on the ground that the predecessors- in-interest of the appellants were in possession of the land for a period of more than 60 years which was always 0 shown as 'shamilat deh', and all revenue records showed the status of the appellants/their predecessors-in-interest as co-sharers, owing to which, they could not be termed ·as tenants. The appellants/their predecessors-in-interest filed E further appeal before the Divisional Commissioner which held that in view of the provisions of Section 4(3)(ii) of the Act, 1961, no distinction can be made between a tenant or co-owner of the 'shamilat deh' and therefore, the right of occupancy would be available to the tenants, as well F as to the co-sharers. The respondent-Gram Panchayat thereafter filed revision application before the Financial Commissioner which allowed the same holding that the appellants were recorded in the revenue record, as joint owners, to whom the land was never leased out by the G Gram Panchayat, and thus, the provisions of the Act 1961 were not attracted, and that occupancy rights cannot be acquired in shamilat deh by a joint-owner. Aggrieved, the appellants filed writ petitions which H 976 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012) 10 S.C.R. A were dismissed by the High Court on the ground that the expression, 'any person' in Section 8 of the Tenancy Act, referred only to the person mentioned in Section 5, which was a tenant and that as the appellants had never been tenants, the question of granting them occupancy rights B could, therefore, not arise; that the appellants had been joint-owners prior to the year 1953 and till date, the revenue record depicts them as joint-owners and that Section 10 of the Tenancy Act puts an embargo on joint- owners to claim occupancy rights. Hence the present C appeals. Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1. There is no cogent reason to interfere with the well-reasoned judgment of the High Court. [Para 19] D [993-D] 2.1.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.