IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No. 1977 of 2011 ( O&M ) DATE OF DECISION : 21.10.2011 Dalip Kaur and others .... APPELLANTS Versus State of Punjab and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH Present: Mr. K.B. Raheja, Advocate, for the appellants. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. This Letters Patent Appeal has been directed by legal representations of Gurnam Singh (respondent No.40 in CWP No. 1059 of 1989) against the order dated 5.4.2011, passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition (CWP No. 1059 of 1989) filed by the landlords (respondents No.4 to 10 herein) for quashing the letter dated 4.7.1988 (Annexure P-7) issued by the Under Secretary to Punjab Government (A.R.) Punjab, Chandigarh, and the order dated 20.12.1988 (Annexure P-9), passed by the Sub Divisional Collector, Rampura Phul, as well as for directing respondents No.1 to 3 not to proceed with the proceedings of change in the mutation, has been allowed. LPA No. 1977 of 2011 -2- The dispute in this appeal is about 1/3rd share of the land, which was earlier in possession of the tenants (private respondents in CWP No. 1059 of 1989) under the ownership of the respondents-landlords. Undisputedly, prior to the year 1947, the entire land was under the ownership of the respondents-landlords and in possession of the tenants, having occupancy rights. However, in order to create cordial relationship between the landlords and tenants, a Farman-i-Shahi was issued by the then Maharaja of Patiala, which is known as Farman-i-Shahi No.6 of 11.3.1947, according to which the occupancy tenants were given ownership of 2/3rd share of the under tenancy land, whereas the remaining 1/3rd share was given to the respondents-landlords. The Farman-i-Shahi dated 11.3.1947 declared that the relationship of landlord and occupancy tenants must come to an end and the ownership rights in the entire land has been given, as indicated above. The mandate of Farman-i-Shahi was given effect by making necessary correction in the revenue record in the year 1948. The mutation with regard to 1/3rd share of the land was sanctioned in favour of the respondents-landlords and regarding 2/3rd share in favour of the tenants. Subsequently, after coming into force of the Pepsu Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietory Rights) Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act of 1953'), the tenants filed four different civil suits against the landlords, alleging therein that in pursuance of the Pepsu Abolition of Biswedari Ordinance (No. XXIII of 2007 B.K.) as well as under the provisions of the Act of 1953, they had also become owners of 1/3rd share of LPA No. 1977 of 2011 -3- the land, which was given to the landlords as owners by the Farman-i- Shahi, as it is in possession of the tenants, therefore, they had become owners of the said portion of the land by virtue of adverse possession. Those suits were hotly contested by the landlords, and all the four suits were dismissed by the Civil Court. The appeals, preferred by the tenants against those judgments, were also dismissed in the year 1984. Thereafter, no appeal was filed and those judgments became final. Subsequently, without agitating the matter further by filing the Regular Second Appeal in the High Court, the tenants approached the Deputy Commissioner, Bathinda, by making a representation, for correction in the revenue record on the same assertions and claim, which they had already made and lost before the Civil Court. The Deputy Commissioner, without caring to call upon the landlords, forwarded the said representation to the Secretary, Punjab Revenue (A.R) Department, Chandigarh, who further forwarded the same to an Under Secretary of the Department. The Under Secretary, without issuing notice to the landlords and without providing them an opportunity of hearing, vide letter dated 4.7.1988 (Annexure P-7), directed the Deputy Commissioner to effect necessary changes in the revenue record by transferring 1/3rd share in favour of the tenants, which in view of the Farman-i-Shahi was earlier given to the landlords. The reasoning given for this direction, while totally ignoring the civil court judgments passed against the tenants, was that under the Act of 1953, the occupancy tenants were made full fledged owners of the land LPA No. 1977 of 2011 -4- under their occupancy. In pursuance of the aforesaid letter, the Sub Divisional Collector, Rampura Phul, vide order dated 20.12.1980 (Annexure P-9), after hearing the landlords, directed respondent No.3 to proceed with the procedure for effecting change in the revenue record. The aforesaid letter dated 4.7.1988 and the order dated 20.12.1980 were challenged by the landlords by way of CWP No. 1059 of 1989, which has been allowed by the learned Single Judge, after coming to the conclusion that the moment the apportionment was done under the Farman-i-Shahi to the extent of 1/3rd share in favour of the landlords and 2/3rd in favour of the tenants, the relationship between landlord and tenant had completely ceased to exist. In that situation, it was not necessary to complete the partition under the Farman-i-Shahi and to take actual possession of the land in accordance with the apportionment made in the Farman-i-Shahi. It was further observed that the civil court had already rejected the plea taken by the tenants that mutation made with regard to 1/3rd right to the landlord in view of the Farman-i-Shahi was merely a paper transaction. It has further been found that even if all the tenants remained in continuous possession of whole of the land/property, they would not become owners of the same in view of the Act of 1953, because under the Farman-i-Shahi 1/3rd share was conferred on the landlords and 2/3rd share was given to the tenants. By that declaration, the relationship between landlords and tenants qua 1/3rd land, which was given to the landlords, came to an end. LPA No. 1977 of 2011 -5- During the course of hearing of this appeal, learned counsel for the appellants again put much emphasis that even after the sanction of mutation of ownership regarding 1/3rd land in favour of the landlords under the Farman-i-Shahi, the tenants remained in possession of the entire land, including 2/3rd land, ownership of which was given to them and until and unless the actual partition had taken place between the landlords and the tenants, the tenants remained in actual physical possession of the entire land as occupancy tenants, therefore, with the commencement of the Act of 1953 and the Pepsu Abolition of Biswedari Ordinance, the tenants being the occupancy tenants on the whole land, became absolute owners of the same. We are afraid to accept this contention, particularly in view of the fact that the similar contention raised by the tenants in the civil suit, filed by them, was rejected and they were not declared owners of 1/3rd land, the ownership of which was conferred on the landlords by the Farman-i-Shahi. Before this Court as well as before the learned Single Bench, learned counsel for the tenants has not disputed the fact that the tenants had lost the civil suits with regard to the claim of ownership on 1/3rd land. In our opinion, in view of the judgment and decree of the civil court, which is not only binding on the tenants, but also on the revenue authorities, therefore, the Under Secretary as well as the Sub Divisional Collector should not have directed to change mutation on the representation made by the tenants. The question as to whether the partition was effected or not, is not relevant. By the Farman-i-Shahi, the relationship between landlords and LPA No. 1977 of 2011 -6- tenants came to an end. The landlords became owners to the extent of 1/3rd land, whereas the tenants became owners to the extent of 2/3rd land. Their title was crystalised. Thereafter, the question as to whether the tenants remained in occupation of the entire land or the partition was effected or not, does not make any difference. With the enforcement of the Act of 1953, the tenants would not become owners of the entire land, merely because at one point of time, they were occupying the entire land. It is pertinent to mention here that before coming into force of the Act of 1953, mutation with regard to ownership of the land in accordance with the aforesaid Farman-i-Shahi was effected in favour of the landlords and the tenants and relationship of landlord and tenant came to an end. Therefore, when the Act of 1953 came into force, right of ownership on 1/3rd land, which had already become absolute in favour of the landlords, would not have to be changed in favour of the tenants on the basis of the Act of 1953. Thus, we are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge has rightly allowed the writ petition, filed by the landlords, quashing the letter dated 4.7.1988 (Annexure P-7) and the order dated 20.12.1988 (Annexure P-9). No merits. Dismissed. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE October 21, 2011 ( PARAMJEET SINGH ) ndj JUDGE