NASIB SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether an occupancy tenant on acquiring the proprietary rights under Section 3 of the Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act, 1952 becomes the owner only of the land in his occupation or does he also acquire a share in the Shamilat land is the primary question which arises for decision in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) Nasib Singh and other petitioners filed an application under Section 111 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act , 1887 for the partition of the joint holding measuring 1594 Kanals 16 Marlas of land situated in Mauza Bhagwala, Tehsil Naraingarh, District Ambala. The private respondents who were the occupancy tenants filed some applications for being impleaded as parties in the partition case claiming themselves to have become co-sharers in the Shamilat land as well by virtue of the provisions of the Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act, 1952 (referred to hereinafter as 'the Act'). The Assistant Collector Il Grade after hearing the parties dismissed the applications holding that the mutations in their favour did not give them any share in the Shamilat An appeal was taken before the Collector, Naraingarh, who also dismissed the same as per his order dated 31.10.1983. Thereafter, a revision petition was filed before the Commissioner who recommended to the Financial Commissioner the acceptance of the same as, according to the Commissioner the private respondents who are occupancy tenants not only become proprietors of the land under their occupation on the enforcement of the Act but also became co-sharers in the Shamilat land by virtue of the provisions of Section 3 of the Act. The Financial Commissioner after hearing the parties accepted the revision petition and remanded the case back to the Assistant Collector II Grade, Raipur Rani to find out whether the original landowners under whom the private respondents were shown as occupancy tenants had any share in the Shamilat land and- if so, to determine their share as that would be deemed to have vested in the occupancy tenants. This order of the Financial Commissioner has been impugned in the present petition.

(3.) In order to answer the question arising in this case, one has to look to the provisions of Section 3 of the Act, relevant portion whereof is reproduced hereunder for facility of reference :