CHANDGI RAM AND OTHERS Vs. F C HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment will dispose of Letters Patent Appeal Nos. 175 and 176 of 1979 which involve common questions of law and fact. The learned Single Judge had also considered and disposed of two Civil Writ Petition Nos. 114 and 123 of 1971 together by means of the impugned judgment, dated September 18, 1979, and the present appeals arise out of the aforesaid decision.

(2.) The facts in both the cases being akin, those in Letters Patent Appeal No. 176 of 1979 arising out of Civil Writ Petition No. 114 of 1971 shall be noticed. Some land belonging to Harbhagat (deceased) who was a big land-owner was declared surplus. Surjan respondent was an ejected tenant and he had been allotted 11 bighas and 6 biswas of land from out of the land if Harbhagat which was declared surplus. The possession of this land was delivered to Surjan on April 29, 1964. Harbhagat during his lifetime, alongwith his sons had taken forcible possession of the allotted land of Surjan, continued to be in its unauthorised occupation. Surjan, therefore, filed an application under Section 43 of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), praying for the restoration of his land. Harbhagat and his sons contested the application mainly on the ground that the possession of the land had been taken by them in 1964 and the above application having been filed by Surjan in the year 1968, the same was barred by limitation. The matter was considered by The Assistant Collector who upheld the objection raised by the land owner and dismissed the application of Surjan as being barred by limitation. Surjan filed an appeal against the said order which was accepted by the Commissioner who directed the restoration of the possession of the land in favour of Surjan, vide order dated October 7, 1970. The land-owner challenged the order of the Commissioner in Revision before the Financial Commissioner, but the same was dismissed on December 14, 1970. In the wake of these decisions of the Revenue Court. Harbhagat and others filed two writ Petition in this Court. Harbhagat died during the pendency of the writ Petitions and his legal representatives were brought on the record. After considering the matter in the light of the submissions made before him, the learned Single Judge dismissed both the Writ petitions. The present Letters Patent Appeals are directed against the said judgment of the learned Single Judge.

(3.) Mr. Sarin, learned counsel for the appellants has reiterated the two points which were urged before the learned Single Judge and contends that the findings on these two points are not in accordance with law. The first point pertains to the question of limitation, the contention being that the application of Surjan tenant, under Section 43 of the Act, having been filed after one year of his dispossession, the same was barred by limitation. The learned counsel has referred to the provisions of the aforesaid section, which may be reproduced for purposes of ready reference :