KANSHI RAM Vs. BHAGTU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BHAGTU and others made an application under s. 57 -A, Tenancy Act to the Collector Kathua for summary reinstatement on half portion of Khasra nos. 596, 597, 593,599,600,601, 602 and 607/2. In the application they alleged that they have been in possession of half portion of these Khasra numbers as tenants at will from S. 2001 up to S. 2007 and in Kharif 2007 they have been forcibly dispossessed by Sant Ram and others appellants. The Collector sent this application Tehsildar Jasmergarh for enquiry. Before the Tehsildar the respondents stated that the Patwari has wrongly entered the applicants as being in possession of half portion of the Khasra numbers mentioned above and that the applicants have never been in possession of the land in dispute. The appellants alleged that they are entered as occupancy tenants in the Revenue papers over half portion of the land comprised of the Khasra numbers stated above and that the applicants not being their tenants cannot seek restoration of possession under s. 57 -A, Tenancy Act. The Tehsildar found that the applicants had been in possession of half portion of the land from s. 2001 to s. 2007 and are entitled to be reinstated. The collector accepted the findings of the Tehsildar and ordered restoration of the possession to the applicants. The applicants were accordingly put in possession of the half portion of the Khasra Numbers mentioned in their application.

(2.) AGAINST this order Sant Ram and other who are entered as occupancy tenants over half portion of the land, have come up in appeal to this Court. It was argued on behalf of the appellants that s. 57 -A, Tenancy Act would not apply to the case of the respondents inasmuch as they were not recorded as tenants under the appellants. The main question for consideration in this appeal, therefore, was whether the respondents who are not recorded as tenants under the appellants had a right to move the Deputy Commissioner under S. 57 -A, Tenancy Act, for being reinstated on the land from which they had been dispossessed. The law point raised by the appellants was of great importance and as this point was likely to be raised in many other cases, the appeal was referred for decision to a Division Bench.

(3.) MR . Ishwar Singh Advocate appears on behalf of the appellants and has argued that the appellants are entered as occupancy tenants in respect of half portion of the Land in dispute. The respondents are not their tenants and they have been dispossessed of their holding by persons other than the persons admitted to be, or recorded as, landlords and they could not be reinstated under s. 57 -A, Tenancy Act.