Case: Tara Chand  Vs. Gram Panchayat Jhupa Khurd

an order is passed, but such expression would include, even a third party giving reasons for its objections to an order and, hence, seeking appropriate relief in the matter. 14. A similar view was re-iterated in Balkrishna Chhaganlal Soni v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1974 SC 120 , by this Court, interpreting the provisions of Sections 107 and 135 (b) of the Customs Act, 1962, observing that the words, ‘any person’ as contained in Section 107 cannot be given a restricted meaning so as to exclude from their ambit, persons who may subsequently be put up for trial. (See also: The Trustees of the Port of Bombay v. The Premier Automobiles Ltd., AIR 1981 SC 1982 ). 15. The instant case is required to be examined in light of the aforesaid statutory provisions and settled legal propositions. This Court in Puran & Ors. v. Gram Panchayat, Faridabad, (2006) 2 SCC 433 , dealt with an identical case and examined most of the statutory provisions involved in this case. The court held that Section 4(3)(ii) of the Act, 1961 would be attracted only if the following three conditions are satisfied: i) The person must be cultivating land which is part of the shamilat deh of a village; ii) He should be cultivating such land for a period of 12 years immediately preceding the commencement of the Act; and iii) He should be cultivating such land without payment of rent or payment of charges in excess of the land revenue and cess. While dealing with the provisions of Section 8 of the Tenancy Act, the court held that nothing contained in Sections 5 to 7, shall preclude any person from establishing a right of occupancy on any ground other than the grounds that have been specified in these sections. The contention of the appellants therein, that their right of occupancy was based on a ground other than the ones mentioned in Section 5 of the Tenancy Act, was based on Section 3(a) of the Act, 1952. However, while dealing with the same, the Court held as under: “Section 3 of the Act relates to vesting of proprietary rights in occupancy tenants and extinguishment of corresponding rights of landlords. It is evident therefrom that the right, title and interest shall be deemed to vest only in an “occupancy tenant”. Occupancy tenant is defined under Section 2(f) as meaning a tenant who, immediately before the commencement of the Proprietary Rights Act, is recorded as an occupancy tenant in the revenue records and includes a tenant who, after such commencement, obtains a right of occupancy in respect of the land held by him whether by agreement with the landlord or through a court of competent jurisdiction or otherwise, and includes also the predecessors and successors-in-interest of an occupancy tenant. Admittedly, neither the appellants nor their predecessors were recorded as occupancy tenants in the revenue records immediately before the commencement of the Proprietary Rights Act, nor did they obtain a right of occupancy in respect of the said land either by agreement with the landlord or through a court of competent jurisdiction or otherwise after the commencement of the Act. The appellants, therefore, do not answer the definition of “occupancy tenant” under the Proprietary Rights Act.Consequently, they cannot derive any benefit under Section 3 of the said Act.If Section 3 of the Proprietary Rights Act is inapplicable, the question that remains for consideration is whether they are entitled to the relief sought merely because the names of Sarjeet and Jivan Lal (father of Appellants 1 to 3 and father of Appellants 4 and 5 respectively) were shown as cultivating the lands for some years from 1966-67. To get excluded from the vesting under Section 4(1) of the Common Lands Act, by relying on Section 4(3)(ii), the appellants should prove that they and their ancestors were cultivating such land for a period of at least 12 years prior to the commencement of the Common Lands Act….”. 16. If the aforesaid test laid down by this Court, is applied to the case at hand, then undoubtedly, all the conditions specified therein have been satisfied by the appellants, and their case is also fully supported by the Gram Panchayat. The contents of its counter affidavit filed before this Court, read: “It is, however, not denied that the petitioners have been in cultivating possession of the lands as per entries in the revenue records from the time of their forefathers for the past over seventy years or so and paying nominal rent to the Gram Panchayat from time to time and when the Panchayat refused to take rent the same was deposited in the court. Their possession has remained uninterrupted. Though the possession has been unauthorised, the Panchayat never admitted the petitioners as its tenants.” 17. In view of the above, the appellants may have a valid case. But in the said case, the provisions of Section 10 of the Tenancy Act, not attracted and thus, the facts herein become distinguishable. However, the High Court found them non-suited on the anvil of Section 10 of the Tenancy Act, observing that the expression ‘any person’, contained in Section 8, does not include a joint-owner (hisedar). It has been admitted by the parties that the appellants and their ancestors were hisedars/joint owners/co-sharers in the shamilat deh from a period prior to even 1935-36. The pleadings of the appellants, in fact, begin with such admission by them.18. Provisions of Section 10 of the Tenancy Act put a complete embargo on a hisedar/joint-owner to claim occupancy rights. There is no agreement between the appellants and Gram Panchyat creating any tenancy in their favour. Granting the relief to the appellants would amount to ignoring the existence of Section 10 itself and it would be against all norms of interpretation which requires that statutory provisions must be interpreted in such a manner as not to render any of its provision otiose unless there are compelling reasons for the court to resort to that extreme contingent.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]the said case, the provisions of Section 10 of the Tenancy Act, not attracted and thus, the facts herein become distinguishable. However, the High Court found them non-suited on the anvil of Section 10 of the Tenancy Act, observing that the expression ‘anycontained in Section 8, does not include a joint-owner (hisedar). It has been admitted by the parties that the appellants and their ancestors were hisedars/joint owners/co-sharers in the shamilat deh from a period prior to even 1935-36. The pleadings of the appellants, in fact, begin with such admission by them.18. Provisions of Section 10 of the Tenancy Act put a complete embargo on a hisedar/joint-owner to claim occupancy rights. There is no agreement between the appellants and Gram Panchyat creating any tenancy in their favour. Granting the relief to the appellants would amount to ignoring the existence of Section 10 itself and it would be against all norms of interpretation which requires that statutory provisions must be interpreted in such a manner as not to render any of its provision otiose unless there are compelling reasons for the court to resort to that extreme contingent.