ASA NAND Vs. MADHO SINGH AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short question which arises for determination is whether the holding of a landlord acquired by allotment from the Custodian: of Evacuee Property is excepted from, provisions of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955?

(2.) THE Plaintiff -Appellant Asa Nand brought a suit for possession of land measuring 9 kanals and 9 marlas in khasra No. 988 2 in village Bhagu of which he obtained possession on 13th June, 1960. This land had been allotted to him earlier in the year 1957. After the Plaintiff had been put in possession of this land the Defendant Madho Singh and another got into possession and claimed it as tenants. Apparently the possession of the Defendant Madho Singh was forcible and the parties resorted to criminal proceedings as well. It has, however, been found by the Courts below and this finding is not challenged that Madho Singh was a lessee under the Custodian. The suit of the Plaintiff was dismissed by the trial Court on the ground that Madho Singh being a tenant of the land in dispute could not be ejected except under the provisions of Section 7 of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955. The Court of the Senior Subordinate Judge, Bhatinda, affirmed this decision of the trial Court and directed the plaint to be returned for presentation to the proper Court, it having held that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction under the provisions of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. 1955 to entertain the suit.

(3.) MR . Aggarwal submits that the land before transference to the Plaintiff had vested either in the State or the Central Government and consequently the provisions of the Act are not applicable. I am afraid I do not agree with the contention of the learned Counsel. The applicability of the Act is excluded only in respect of lands which are either owned by or vested in the State or the Central Government. After the land had been transferred to an allottee, it ceased to be owned by or vested in the State or the Central Government. In fact clause (b) of sub -section (1) of Section 51, on which reliance has been placed, mentions specifically that the exception is made only in. respect of land vested in the Central Government and not transferred to an allottee either on permanent or quasi -permanent basis. The suit land has admittedly been allotted to the Plaintiff and this indeed is the foundation of his claim. Such land according to the statute itself does not vest in the Central Government.