LAWS(P&H)-1989-3-135

KARTAR SINGH Vs. SMT. PURO AND OTHERS

Decided On March 30, 1989
KARTAR SINGH Appellant
V/S
Smt. Puro And Others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE land in dispute was owned by Ram Singh of which Kartar Singh was the tenant at will. Punjab Government acquired the same and paid compensation to the persons interested in the land. As a result, the land vested in the Punjab Government free of all encumbrances. The land was acquired for setting up a pond and when this purpose could not be achieved, the Punjab Government leased out the land to the original land owners by a written document. In pursuance of that lease, the widow and daughters of Ram Singh, who were given lease of the land by the Punjab Government wanted to take possession but Kartar Singh filed a suit to restrain them from taking possession. His case in the suit was that he continued to be the tenant under the State Government and unless his tenancy tights were terminated in accordance with law, he could not be dispossessed. The heirs of the original owner, who were granted lease by the State Government contested the suit and pleaded that on acquisition the rights of the original owners as also of the tenants, ceased and the land vested in the State Government free from any encumbrances with the result that the tenancy of Kartar Singh also ceased and he could not claim legal possession over the same and to a trespasser injunction could not be granted. The trial Court decreed the suit but lower Appellate Court held that the tenancy of Kartar Singh came to an end on acquisition and he was unable to prove the creation of tenancy by the State Government in his favour because that can be done only by a written document. All contracts by the State Government have to be executed in accordance with Article 299 of the Constitution or any other law which may be applicable, but in this case no written contract of tenancy was alleged or proved by Kartar Singh. He was considered as a trespasser. Since the State Government had created lease in a favour of the heirs of the original owner by a written document, they were held entitled to occupy the land and it was held that a person in illegal possession cannot protect his possession by getting a decree of injunction. As a result the suit was dismissed. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree Kartar Singh has come to this Court in RSA No. 1739 of 1978.

(2.) THE heirs of the original owner, who were given lease of the land in dispute, found it difficult to take possession by force and, therefore, took recourse to a suit for possession against Kartar Singh. That suit was decreed by both the courts below after recording a finding that possession of Kartar Singh was as a trespasser and in view of the lease created by the State Government in their favour, they were entitled to a decree. Kartar Singh has filed RSA No. 1259 of 1982 against those judgments and decrees. Since common questions arise, both the appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(3.) WITH the aforesaid observations, both the appeals (RSA No. 1739 of 1978 and RSA 1259 of 1982) are dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.