Raj Kumar vs Dharam Singh Etc.

G.R. Majithia, J.—The unsuccessful defendant has corns up in regular second appeal against the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court affirming on appeal those of the trial Judge, whereby it decreed the suit filed by deceased plaintiff Sardar Singh (now represented by his legal representatives Dharam Singh etc.) for declaration to the effect that the decree of the Civil Court dated April 28, 1973 copy Ex. D-5) and the order of purchase passed by the Assistant Collector, I Grade, Palwal on December 18, 1973 (copy Ex. D-5 and the order of purchase passed by the Assistant Collector, I Grade, Palwal on December 18, 1973 (copy Ex. D-4) would not bind him.

The facts :-

The disputed land was owned by the defendants No. 2 to 5. (respondents No. 4 to 7 in second appeal) (hereinafter the non-contesting defendants) ; that Sardar Singh deceased plaintiff, the predecessor-in-interest of respondents No. 1 to 3 (hereinafter to be referred to as the plaintiff) was an ejected tenant ; that he was to be resettled on some surplus area ; that Circle Revenue Patwari, Palwal, vide his order dated September 1, 1972 (copy Ex. D-9) allotted the disputed land to him and he was put in possession thereof ; that an entry to this effect was also made in the Daily Diary ; that defendant No. 1 appellant (hereinafter to be referred to as the contesting defendant) filed a suit for declaration that he was a tenant in possession of the suit land under the non-contesting defendants ; that the said suit was decreed vide judgment and decree (copies Ex. D-3 and D-5 by the civil Court on April 28, 1973. The contesting defendant thereafter filed a petition u/s 18 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (for short, the Act) in the Court of Assistant Collector, I Grade, Palwal and that petition was allowed by him vide order dated December 18, 1973 (copy Ex-D-4) and the plaintiff challenged the judgment and decree of the civil Court (Ex. D-3 and D-5) and the order of purchase dated December 12, 1973 (copy Ex. D-4) in the Civil Court on the ground that he was not bound by the same and his possession could not be disturbed.

The contested defendant controverted the pleas in the plaint and this led to the framing of the following issues :-

(1) Whether the plaintiff is in possession of the suit land as tenant under defendants No. 2 to 5 ? OPP

(2) Whether the decrees dated 28-4-1973 and 18-12-1973 are not binding on the plaintiff as alleged in the plaint ? OPP

(3) Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form ? OPD

(4) Whether the court has no jurisdiction to try ? OPD

(5) Whether the suit has not been properly valued for purposes of court fee and jurisdiction ? OPD

(6) Relief.

The trial Judge held that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit land as a tenant but not under the non-contesting defendants ; that the judgment and decree of the Civil Court dated April 28, 1973 were found to be be collusive but the order of purchase passed by the Assistant Collector, I Grade, Palwal, on December 18, 1973, in favour of the contesting defendant could not be declared to be invalid in view of the provisions of Section 25 of the Act. Issue No, 2 was disposed of accordingly. Issues Nos. 3 to 5 were answered against the contesting defendant. On ultimate analysis, the suit was decreed.

The first appellate Court on the same parity of reasoning affirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Judge.

The view taken by the Courts below is Unsustainable. The disputed land was surplus area of the non-contesting defendants. The plaintiff was allotted the land as a re-settled tenant by the Circle Revenue Officer. The landowners (the non-contesting defendants) challenged the order of the Circle Revenue Officer under which the the plaintiff was re-settled on she disputed land. The Collector vide his order dated July 25, 1974 (copy Ex. D-10) set aside the order of the Circle Revenue Officer dated September 1, 1972 re-settling the plaintiff on the disputed land. The Collector found that the Circle Revenue Officer had violated the provisions of Rules 20-B and 20-C of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules by making allotment to the plaintiff. The compliance of these rules was mandatory. Non-compliance of these rules rendered the allotment invalid. After setting aside the order of the Circle Revenue Officer, the Collector remanded the case with the directions that the Circle Revenue Officer Will proceed afresh for determining the eligibility of the ejected tenant for re-settlement. Till the decision by the Circle Revenue Officer, the plaintiff''s possession was not to be disturbed. The allotment in favour of the plaintiff stood cancelled. He continued to remain in possession of the disputed land not as an allottee but pursuant to the direction of the Collector incorporated in his order and the Courts below are in error in observing that the plaintiff''s right as a re-settled tenant was protected by the Collector while setting aside the order of the Circle Revenue Officer. The order of the Collector does not indicate what has been suggested in the judgment of the first appellate Court. The plaintiff for reasons not apparent did not pursue before the Circle Revenue Officer and the latter did not comply with the direction contained in the Collector''s order dated July 25, 1974. The terms of the order of the Collector, Ex. D-10, were violated by the Circle Revenue Officer presumably at the behest of the interested party, but did not want the eligibility of the resettled tenant to be determined after complying with the mandatory provisions of Rules 20-B and 20-C of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules. The conduct of the Circle Revenue Officer in flouting the Collector''s order deserves to be condemned. The resultant effect is that the plaintiff is not a re-settled tenant and he acquired no right to hold the disputed property and thus he has no locus standi to maintain the suit. To sustain an action in the civil court, the plaintiff must establish the existence of a civil right which has been violated or which is threatened. In the present case, no right, much less a legal right, has been even plausibly propounded. The order of purchase dated December 18, 1973 (Ex. D-4) could not be assailed in the civil Court in view of the jurisdictional bar created by Section 25 of the Act. The contesting defendant, notwithstanding the fact that the Civil Court''s decree in his favour was found to be invalid, had a valid order of purchase in his favour, the validity of which was not doubted by the civil Court, had a right to enter into possession as a tenant pursuant to that order. Thus, the judgments and decrees of the Courts below are unsustainable.

For the reasons stated above, the appeal succeeds the judgment and decrees of the Courts below are set aside and the suit for declaration filed by the plaintiff is dismissed but with no order as to costs.