UNION OF INDIA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants brought a suit for declaration on the ground that they being recorded as occupancy tenants of the land in dispute had become its owners on the coming into operation of the Punjab Occupancy Tenants (vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act, 1953, and the respondents had no right, title or interest to dispossess the appellants from the land in dispute in any manner. Both the learned Courts below have non-suited them. The learned trial Court has held that except for Khasra No. 521 the appellants have not been shown to be in possession of the land because this land had been allotted to various displaced person who in turn had got alternative land in lieu thereof because of the consolidation proceedings. On these grounds the claim of the appellants with respect of Khasra No. 521 was allowed and their claim with regard to other Khasra numbers was dismissed. A perusal of the record shows that in the Jamabandi for the year 1945-46 this land was part of the village shamlat land and the appellants were shown as Maroosi tenants. The next Jamabandi was prepared in the year 1957-58 in which the names of the tenants were deleted. The fact, however, remains that the date on which the Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act, 1953, came into force, the appellants were recorded Muzara Maroosis or occupancy tenants in respect of the land in dispute. By virtue of Section 3 of the aforementioned Act, all rights, title and interest of the so called landlords in respect of this land had come to vest in the tenants and they had become full owners thereof. After the coming into force of the said Act, it was not open to the respondents to meddle with this land or to sell the same. The additional ground which impels me to hold that the appellants were in fact in possession of the land in dispute is that after the admission of this appeal, this property was being sold by the respondent and a learned Judge of this Court ordered that the sale be not confined in the name of the intending purchaser. I do not understand the reasoning advanced by the learned lower appellate Court in holding that since some alternative land has been allotted to some allottees as a result of consolidation proceedings, the appellants could not be granted any relief. Once it is held that the appellants were in possession of the land in dispute as shown in the Jamabandi for the year 1945-46, they would be presumed to be in possession thereof till something to the contrary is alleged and mere change in the revenue entries would not indicate that the appellants have been physically dispossessed of the land in dispute.

(2.) For the reasons mentioned above, I allow this appeal and decree the claim of the appellants. They shall also be entitled to the costs which is assessed at Rs. 100/-.