SHIV RAM Vs. LAL CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revenue first appeal and arises out of an order of the Settlement Officer Poonch, Rajouri dated 29th August 1961 whereby the said Settlement Officer dismissed the suit of Lal Chand appellant against Shiv Ram and others. The suit was lodged by Lal Chand appellant against Shiv Ram and others with the allegation that Lal Chand and Amin Chand are brothers who hold land jointly in village Remana Tehsil Rajouri. Out of their joint land which the two brothers held a considerable portion of it was in the possession of occupancy tenants, Fahmi, Mohd. Shafi and Mohd. Alam sons of Rehim Baksh who were also occupancy tenants along with others of Khewat No. 8 which comprised of 57 kanals and 2 marlas of land in the said village. Out of these 57 kanals and 2 marlas which these three occupancy tenants, along with others, held under Lal Chand and Amin Chand, these three persons sold the rights of occupancy in 19 kanals and 6 Sirsais of the land in survey Nos. 159 and 432/179 with 1/3 of the building standing thereon for a consideration of Rs. 1000 in favour of Shiv Ram by means of a sale deed dated 23rd April 1958. Shiv Ram it may be mentioned is the son of Amin Chand, one of the co -sharers in this land. Mutation was attested in favour of Shiv Ram of the occupancy rights purchased by him. Lal Chand brought a suit under S. 66 of the Tenancy Act for cancellation of the mutation and for ejectment of Shiv Ram transferee. His case was that the sale deed being in contravention of the provisions of S. 60 of the Tenancy Act was voidable and therefore he was entitled to a decree for ejectment and declaration as prayed for.

(2.) IF any person refuses or fails to comply with the order of eviction within the period specified therein, any officer authorized by the Central Government in this behalf (hereafter in this rule referred to as the authorized officer) may evict that person from, and take possession, of the public premises and may for that purpose use such force as may be necessary.

(3.) IF any obstruction is offered or in the opinion of the authorized officer, is likely to be offered, to the taking possession of the public premises, the authorized officer may obtain necessary police assistance.