LILU AND ORS. Vs. KARAM CHAND AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only question for decision in this appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is the interpretation of the proviso to Section 5 of the East Punjab Utilization of Lands Act (No. XXXVIII of 1949) - -hereinafter referred to as the Act - -and it arose in the following circumstances.

(2.) KARM Chand, Lal Chand and Fatta Ram are displaced persons to whom 170 acres of land in village Majhala, tahsil Kaithal, district Karnal, have been allotted. Presumably, because the allottees had not been able to arrange for the cultivation of the land, the Collector, Karnal District, acting under Section 3 of the Act, took possession of the land sometime in June, 1951. Section 5 of the Act provides that where the Collector has taken possession of any land under Section 3, he may lease it to any person on such terms and conditions as he may deem fit for the purpose of growing food and fodder crops, but the proviso to this section is that the period of lease shall not be less than 7 years or more than 20 years. The Collector proceeding under Section 5 leased out the land for a period of seven years to Keeru and Jumman. Subsequently, it transpired that the lessees had sublet the land to one Leelu and some other persons, who actually cultivated part of it. During the currency of the lease, the allottees Karm Chand and others took possession of part of the land, which they cultivated. When the lease was about to expire or had already expired, the allottees approached the Collector under Section 7 of the Act for restoration of possession of the entire land. On the 18th of July, 1958, the Collector passed his order (copy annexure 'B'), in which he directed that certain specified fields which were still lying banjar and certain other fields, which had been broken by the allottees without authority should be returned to them on certain conditions (which are not material for the purposes of this appeal). The possession over the remaining land was to remain with Leelu and others (who had actually cultivated it) and they were directed to execute a fresh lease deed for the balance of the permissible period of 20 years, and the original lease in favour of Keeru and Jumman was to be treated as terminated.

(3.) AGAINST this order, Leelu and Keeru have filed this appeal. There is an application on behalf of the State that the Collector, who is shown as one of the Respondents in the Letters Patent appeal, should be transposed as the Appellant. This application was accepted by the learned Judge of this Court on the 15th of December, 1959.