Bur Singh and Others vs Commissioner of Patiala Division and Others

A.N. Grover, J. 1. It is indeed surprising how the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner considered that Section 43 of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955, was applicable in this case. Indeed such a view was not tenable on the admitted facts which are stated in the order of the Financial Commissioner himself.

The present Petitioners Rur Singh, Kapur Singh, etc., had lands in village Dulewal. The Respondents Kartar Singh, Labh Singh and others had lands in village Dhilwan. This was the situation after mutual exchanges between them. In the jamdbandi entries the Petitioners were shown as holding the lands in village Dulewal having exchanged them with the aforesaid Respondents. At the time of consolidation proceedings, however, the consolidation authorities did not rely upon those entries and the Respondents Kartar Singh, etc., were regarded to be the owners of the lands at village Dulewal and possession was accordingly handed over to them of those lands. The Petitioners later on managed to take possession of those very lands which they claimed to have got in exchange. Respondents Kartar Singh, etc., moved the Naib-Tehsildar who made a report against the Petitioners. The matter was submitted to the Collector for intervention � u/s 43 of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955. The Collector held that the case did not fall within the purview of Section 43 and the application was dismissed. Respondents Kartar Singh and others went up in appeal before the Commissioner who in a very perfunctory way without giving any cogent reasons allowed the appeal. Then the matter was taken to Shri K.L. Budhiraja, Financial Commissioner, he wrote a fairly detailed order but has given reasons for holding that action could be taken u/s 43 which are apparently erroneous. He has relied on Fauja and Ors. v. Sardar Surat Singh and Ors. 1956 L.L.T. 16, which is palpably a wrong decision as against another authority which was cited before him Shri Bal Krishan Khosla v. Ram Gopal 1957 L.L.T. 15. The 1956 decision was given by Shri Jai Dev Singh, Financial Commissioner, Pepsu, who expressed the view that the use of the expression �any person� in Section 43 takes the scope of the section beyond the two classes of persons, that is, landlord and tenant and it makes the section applicable even to a trespasser. The language of Section 43 which is reproduced below warrants no such conclusion.

(1) Any person who is in wrongful or unauthorised possession of any land �

(a) the transfer of which either by the

act of parties or by the operation of law is invalid under the provisions of this Act, or

(b) to the use and occupation of which he

is not entitled under the provisions of this Act. may, after summary enquiry, be ejected by the Collector, who may also impose on such person a penalty not exceeding five hundred rupees.

(2) The Collector may direct that the whole or any part of the penalty imposed under Sub-section (1)� shall be paid to the person who has sustained any loss or damage by the wrongful or unauthorised possession of the land.

As the preamble indicates, the Act in question was to amend and consolidate the law, relating to tenancies of agricultural lands and to provide for certain measures of land reforms. According to the section itself, only that person can be subjected to a penalty by the Collector who is in wrongful or unauthorised possession, the transfer of which either by the act of parties or by the operation of law was invalid under the pro-provisions of the Act or to the use and occupation of which he was not entitled under the Act. The Act cannot possibly apply to an alleged trespasser who came into occupation or possession of the land which has nothing to do with the provisions of the Act. Indeed, a Division Bench of this Court had occasion to consider:this matter in Bhai Ardaman Singh, etc., v. The State of Punjab, etc., L.P.A. 148 of 1958, decided on 14th May 1959, in which it was held that the clear meaning of the section was that possession must be unlawful or unauthorised either because it falls within the scope of Clause (a) or Clause (b) of Section 43. Although the dispute there was between the landlord and the tenants but the Bench held that after the Act came into force, the tenants could only be ejected in accordance with the provisions of Section 7 and if Section 7 was not in force when the tenants were dispossessed and the landlord had taken possession, it was difficult to see how the possession of the land could possibly be said to infringe the provisions of Clause (b) of Section 43. It will be useful at this stage to briefly review the scheme and provisions of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955. Chapter I contains the preliminary provisions. Chapter II provides for reservation of land for personal cultivation. Chapter III contains sections in respect of general rights of tenancy. Chapter IV contains provisions for acquisition of proprietary rights by tenants; Chapter IV-A relatives to ceiling on land and acquisition and disposal of surplus area. The other Chapters are not of material importance. As stated in the preamble, the main object was to amend and consolidate the law relating to tenancies of agricultural lands and to provide for certain measures of land reforms apparently with regard to them. It could not possibly be said that in the present case there was any dispute whatsoever between the landlords and the tenants or the possession which the Petitioners had taken concerned any such dispute or was the direct result of violation of any of the provisions of the Act. Shri Ranbir Singh, Additional Financial Commissioner, in the case referred to before (1957 L.L.T. 15) has admirably summarised the scope of the Act in general and Section 43 in particular in the following words:

�The Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act has been enacted with a view to provide for certain measures of land reforms and for the security of land tenures. Its enforcement has brought about radical progressive land reforms and presumably the legislature enacted Section 43 to pro vide for effective and sumary remedy for any unauthorised occupations after the promulgation of the Act. The purpose of inserting Section 43 to the Act is, therefore, to provide for imme diate implementation of the different sections of the Act whereby the hold ings have to be regulated within the permissible limits or reservations of the land have to be made for personal cultivation or similar other changes provided for in the Act have to be brought about. Thus, this is a sum mary remedy for ensuring that the different provisions of the Act are be ing immediately complied with * * * * * * *

In this view of the matter, the orders of both the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner merit quashing as there is an apparent error. Consequently the petition is allowed with costs and their orders are set aside.