HARMEL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE application in CM No. 13598 of 2010 has been filed by the writ petitioners for review of the order that was rendered by this Court on 12.05.2010. The judgment had been rendered on merits in the presence of the respondent, although there was no representation on behalf of the petitioners. The application for review was made principally on the ground that the judgment suffers from a patent error in observing that by virtue of the provisions of the Pepsu Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act, 1954 (hereinafter called 'the 1954 Act'), the property became vested in the private respondents who claimed vesting of the property under the Act, without taking note of Farman-i-Shahi, dated 11th March, 1947, that accorded to the owner 1/3rd share. On the day when the the 1954 Act came into being, there existed no relationship of landlord and tenant with reference to 1/3rd share that had been granted to the petitioner. The Act that provided for vesting required the continuation of landlord tenant relationship till the date when the Act was passed in order that such vesting took place.

(2.) NOTICES had been sent to all the private parties, who had been contending as owners, who were the erstwhile tenants and who claimed the benefit of the the 1954 Act and invited parties to argue on the point of effect of Farmain-i-shai on the vesting rights guaranteed under the 1954 Act.

(3.) THE learned Senior Counsel, Shri Pawan Kumar refers to a judgment of this Court in Atma Singh and others v. Financial Commissioner, Punjab and others- 1965 Revenue Rulings XLIV 77, to say that reading the Pepsu Abolition of Biswedari Ordinance, Farman-i-Shahi No. 6 and Pepsu Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act, together would show that any proceedings which had been concluded and became final under the Farman-i-Shahi or the Ordinance could not be interfered with under the Act. The moment the apportionment was done under the Farman-i-Shahi, the relationship between the landlord and the tenant had completely ceased to exist. It was not necessary to complete the partition under the Farman-i-Shahi and that actual possession should have passed to the erstwhile landlord.