MOMAN AND JUGGA Vs. GURBACHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff-appellants, who are the tenants on the land in dispute, filed a suit alleging that they have become the owners under the provisions of Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955 (hereinafter called 'the Act') and they are in possession of the same as owners and that the defendant-respondents have nothing to do with the land in dispute. The prayer made in the plaint was that a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendant-respondents from interfering with the plaintiff-appellants' possession over the land in dispute be granted and the defendant-respondents be restrained from getting appraised and distributed the crop Rabi, 1963, and the subsequent crops of the land. The claim of the plaintiff-appellants have become the owners of the land in dispute. It was pleaded in the written statement that the defendant-respondents still continue to be the owners of the suit land as the application of the plaintiff-appellants for acquiring the proprietary rights was still pending and had not been finally disposed of. The parties contested on the following issues :-

(2.) The only issue which now survives for decision is issue No. 1. The facts are not disputed. It is proved on record that the plaintiff-appellants were the tenants on the land in dispute at the time of coming into force of the Act. They made an application under Section 22(2) of the Act to the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, for conferring proprietary rights on them. The Assistant Collector allowed their application under Section 23(1) of the Act and the proprietary rights were conferred on them accordingly. They also paid the first instalment of compensation as required under Section 23(3) of the Act and a certificate of the proprietary rights was also granted to them. Dissatisfied by the order of Assistant Collector, the respondents filed an appeal before the Collector who did not disturb the finding so far as granting of the proprietary rights was concerned, but only remanded the case to the Assistant Collector for redetermination of the compensation. The provision of Section 23 of the Act is quite clear and the learned Additional District Judge has legally erred in interpreting this provision. Section 23 of the Act is in the following terms :-

(3.) reading of this provision shows that when an application is made under Section 22, the prescribed authority, when it is satisfied that the applicant is entitled to acquire proprietary rights in the land, shall determine the compensation payable in respect thereof. The compensation is to be paid in accordance with the principles set out in Section 26. After the compensation is determined under sub-section (1) of Section 23, the prescribed authority shall by order in writing require the applicant to deposit the first instalment of the compensation as prescribed under Section 27 in a Government Treasury and to produce a receipt for the same within a period of fifteen days from the date of service of such order. When the first instalment of compensation is deposited in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (2), then the prescribed authority has to issue a certificate in the prescribed form declaring the applicant to be a landowner. Once such a certificate is issued in the prescribed form, from that date the proprietary rights of the landowner in the land specified in the certificate shall be deemed to have been extinguished and such proprietary rights shall be deemed to have been conferred on the tenants free from all encumbrances and from that date the tenant shall cease to be liable to pay any rent in respect of such land. So the wording of the Section is quite clear. Admittedly, in this case the certificate of ownership was issued by the prescribed authority, as required under Section 23(3) of the Act, and the Collector on appeal never cancelled the certificate of proprietary right but only remanded the case for redetermination of compensation. It is a settled law of interpretation that a simple grammatical meaning is to be given to the language of the provision. Nothing is to be added or subtracted. The learned Additional District Judge has legally erred in interpreting the Section otherwise and has misconstrued the language of the provision. The provisions of Section 23 of the Act are fully complied with and the tenant-plaintiffs were issued the sale certificate after they deposited the first instalment of compensation.