TARSEM LAL & ORS. versus RAM SARUP & ORS.

Citation: [2014] 8 S.C.R. 701 · Decided: 28-04-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: C.K. PRASAD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2014] 8 S.C.R. 701 
TARSEM LAL & ORS: 
v. 
RAM SARUP & ORS .. 
(Civil Appeal N(). 4919 of 2014) · 
APRIL 28, ·2014 
' 
<"' :-· 
[CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD.~ .. 
SUDHANSU JYOTI M~~HQPl\O~~Y.c&kl~A 
A 
·s 
H/MACHAL. PRADESH 'fEN~i;;i AND LAND 
REFORMS ACT, 1972: 
. 
. ' . 
. 
C 
s.36 rlw s.104(3) - Tenant's:ngbt,to,.Wfit{;t'..::0Teriant~joying 
right to water immediately prior· to. ~riforcem8rJt o( ·the Act -
Subsequent to lease deed, by virlue·.of.s.104(3) proprietary 
rights conferred upon tenant - Held: !n, terms_ of s. 104 (3), 
0 
plaintiff-tenant became owner of suit land by operation of Jaw 
and continued to enjoy all the rights including right of irrigation 
from the common source which was in posses_sion of original 
landlord -- In view of provisions of s. 36; landlord shall not be 
competent to curtail or terminate the supply of canal, ~uh/ or E 
use of well water enjoyed by a tenant immediately before 
commencement of the Act; and breach of the· said.provision 
shall constitute a cognizable offence punishable-ttrlder the law. 
The instant appeal filed by the heirs and legal 
representatives of the original plaintiff-tenant arose out 
F 
of the claim of the tenant, who under the lease deed, had 
right of irrigation from a common source in the form of 
well situated on the land belonging to the landlord, to the 
said right of irrigation after he was conferred proprietary 
rights over the suit land on coming into force of the H.P. 
G 
Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972. 
Allowing the appeal the Court 
701 
H 
702 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 8 S.C.R. 
A 
HELD: 1.1. The provisions of s. 36 of the Himachal 
Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972, would 
show that the landlord shall not be competent to curtail or 
terminate the supply of canal, kuhl or use of well water 
enjoyed 
by a tenant immediately before the· 
B commencement of the Act and breach of the said 
provision shall constitute a cognizable offence punishable 
under the law. In the instant case, the original plaintiff, i.e., 
predecessor-in-interest of the appellants, was inducted as 
tenant pursuant to a registered deed dated 23.8.1968 
c executed by the land owner, with a right of irrigation from 
common source in the form of well situated on the land 
belonging to land owner. In view of s. 36, after enactment 
of law, the original plaintiff has a right to water to which 
he was entitled prior to the proclamation of the Act. [para 
D 9 and 11] [705-G-H; 706-D, E] 
1.2. In terms of s. 104 (3), the original plaintiff became 
owner of the suit land by operation of law and continued 
to enjoy all the rights including right of irrigation from the 
common source which was in possession of the original 
E landlord. This has been rightly appreciated by the trial 
court '1nd the first appellate court which 'has also noticed 
that the mutation in respect of the land recorded in the 
revenue recCIJ'd of 25.4.1982 is clearly showing the well 
as source of irrigation of the land. Therefore, it was not 
F open to the High Court to hold that a tenant on being , 
land owner ceases to hold his right to water which he · 
was enjoying prior to the Act. The High Court has failed . 
to appreciate s. 36 of the Act and erred in holding that s. 
36 is applicable to tenancy land and not to the land 
G owned. The judgment and decree passed by the High 
Court is set aside and that passed by the trial court as 
confirmed by the first appellate court is affirmed. [para 13-
15] [707 -C-G] 
H 
TARSEM LAL v. RAM SARUP.. 
703 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. A 
4919 of 2014. 
From the Judment and Order dated 02.05.2008 of the High 
Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in RS.A. No. 126 of 1996. 
Ravi Bakshi, Yash Pal Dhingra for the Appellants. 
Nitin Sangra, Gaurav Agrawal for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
B 
SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J. 1. Leave C 
·granted. 
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and 
decree dated 2nd May, 2008 passed by the High ~ourt of 
Himachal Pradesh, Shimla in RS.A. No.126 of 1996. By the D 
impugned judgment and decree High Court reversed the 
concurrent finding of the Courts below and held that Section 36 
(wrongly mentioned as Rule 36 in the impugned judgment) of 
the Himacha~I Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 
(hereinafter ;·eferred to as "the Act") is applicable to tenancy E 
land and not to the ownership land owned by a person, and 
therefore, not applicable to the appellants 

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