Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 786 (PNJ)

State Of Punjab v. Gian Chand

2010-02-03

VINOD K.SHARMA

body2010
Judgment Vinod K.Sharma, J. 1 This regular second appeal filed by the State is directed against the judgment and decree dated 6.1.2005, passed by the learned Courts below vide which the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent for declaration and mandatory injunction directing the correction in the column of ownership in the revenue record, stands allowed. 2 It is not in dispute, that the predecessors-in-interest of the plaintiff/respondent were recorded as Muafidar in the jamabandi for the year 2000-2001 BK, as per Ex.P25/A. 3 The case of the plaintiff/respondent was, that on resumption of Muafithe predecessors-in-interest of the plaintiff/respondent were conferred the status of occupancy tenant as per the entries in the Wazib-ulurjEx. P-2, wherein it was recorded, that on resumption of Muafi, the Muafidar would get the status of an occupancy tenant. 4 It was the further case of the plaintiff/respondent, that the right of occupancy tenant matured into that of ownership under Section 3 of the Pepsu Occupancy Tenancy (Vesting of Proprietory Rights) Act, 1954, therefore, the plaintiff/respondent being owner in possession of the property was entitled to the declaration prayed for. The revenue record was also required to be corrected. This plea of the plaintiff/respondent stands accepted by the learned Courts below. 5 The learned Addl. A.G., Punjab contends that this appeal raises the following substantial question of law for consideration :- "Whether the learned Courts below were justified in accepting the self destructive plea of tenancy and ownership by way of adverse possession ? 6 In support of this substantial question of law the learned Addl. A.G., Punjab vehemently contended, that the learned Courts below have misread the Wazib-ul-urj entries (Ex.P-2), wherein it was clearly recorded that on resumption of Muafi, the land would revert back to the owner. Consequently, the Provincial Government was rightly recorded as owner of the property in dispute, and the plaintiff/respondent being a tenant could not claim ownership, in view of the settled principle of law, that once a tenant is always a tenant. 7 The contention of the learned Addl. A.G., Punjab was, that the judgment and decree passed by the learned Courts below deserves to be set aside. 8 On consideration, I find no force in the contention raised by the learned Addl. A.G., Punjab. The plaintiff/respondent had given up the plea of adverse possession and claimed the ownership of the land by virtue of statutory rights vested in him. 8 On consideration, I find no force in the contention raised by the learned Addl. A.G., Punjab. The plaintiff/respondent had given up the plea of adverse possession and claimed the ownership of the land by virtue of statutory rights vested in him. Once it is not disputed that as per the entries in Wazib-ul- urjon resumption of the Muafi the person in possession was to be treated as occupancy tenant, then by virtue of provisions of the Pepsu Occupancy Tenancy (Vesting of Proprietory Rights) Act, 1954, the occupancy tenancy matured into the ownership, therefore, the plaintiff/respondent rightly claimed himself to be the owner. 9 The contention of the learned Addl. A.G., Punjab that "once a tenant is always a tenant" can not be applied to the facts of case, as the occupancy tenancy rights matured in ownership under the statute and not by act of a party by contract, which could debar the plaintiff/respondent to claim the right of ownership. 10 The findings recorded by the learned Courts below, being as per settled principle of law, the substantial question of law raised by the appellant is answered against the appellant State. No merit. Dismissed, but with no order as to costs.