# a 006 DASAUDHA SINGH & ORS. ETC. ETC v. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS

- **Citation:** [1973] 2 S.C.R. 1006
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1972-11-16
- **Bench:** A. N. Grover, K. K. Mathew, A. K. Mukherjea
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/a-006-dasaudha-singh-ors-etc-etc-v-state-of-haryana-ors-5753
- **Pages:** 13

## Headnote

East Pun;ab Utilisation of Lands A.ct
1949-Ss. 7 and 11-ScopeWhtthtr afttr .th.e expiry of the lease the owntl' can get back liis propcrtyPower of the Collector under S. 7(1 )-Wlwher eviction possible onlv under
Pun/ab Tenancy A.ct.
·
A
B
Section 7 of the East Punjab Utilisation of Lands Act 1949, provides c
'that wbero any land taken possession of by the Collector under Section 3
is, on the expiry of the lease to be returned to the owner, the Collector
may, after enquiry, specify by order in writing, the person to whom pos·
UISlion of the land shall be given and that delivery of possession of land
shall be a full discharge of the Collector of all liability etc.
Further
where the right person cannot be found, the Collector shall aftlx a notice
on the land declaring it to have been released.
After such a notice, the
Collector or the Government shall uot be liable for nny compensation.
D
Section 11 provides that the Collector may use force 'for enforcing- his
order made under this Act.
In the appeals, the main question for detern1ination was the scope,
ambit and interpretation of S. 7 read with S. 11 of the Act. It waa contended by the appellants that under S. 7, the Collector had no po9•er to
evict a lessee after the expiry of the lease. For that purpose resort must
be had to the provisions of the Punjab Tenancy Act 1887, of the Oenerai
E
Lav:.
Dismissing the appeal,
HELD : ( 1) Section 7 (!) of the Act cannot be read in isolation, but
bas to' be interpreted in the light of the purpose and scheme of the Act
as also the other relevant provisions. The sole purpose for which the Act
wu enacted was to ensure that such lands as were capable of producing
food or fodder but which owing to the neglect on the part of the owners
were not beina C'Ultivated, are utilised for cultivation.
Under S. 3,
the
Collector is empowered to take possession of any cultivable land which
remained fallow for the last six or more harvests.
The Collector was
to give a lease for the minimum period Of 7 years, but not more thaa
20 years.
The tenant, however, knew beforehand that on the expiry of
the period of the lease, he would have to surrender possession to the
owner.
The Act, '"'where contemplated that tl:e owner should be completely
depfr:ed of his ownership right. The compensation to which he was en·
!.'l!«i under s. 4 was for the temporary deprivation of the exercise of hi<
ow,ltrsliip rights. [101 I Hl
F
(ii) Section 7(1) when read in the context clearly shows that it was
H
intended to empower the Collector to make an order in writing after the
'
expiry of the lease saying that tM ·possession of the land shaU be given
to the person named or specified in the order. The words. "to whom pos·
session of land shall be given' contained the mandate under which
the
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
DASAUDHA SINGH v. HARYANA (Grover, J.)
1001·
Collector derived powers of directing that the possession of the land was.
IO be given by the tooant to the owner whose name was •pecified in the
Collector's order. If the tenant did not comply with the order or direction
made under s. 7, the Collector could use such steps or force as was nece•-
•111)' for compliance with the order. (1013 CJ
(iii)-The answer to the question that eviction could take place OLiy
under the Tenancy Act or the general Jaw, and not under Section 7(1)
di. the Act, is that tl:le East Punjab Utilisation of Lands Act 1949 WM
intended to be exhaustive for the purpose for which it was enacted. It
is hardly possible to regard a tenant of the Collector under the Act as
falling within the definition of a 'tenant' under the Tenancy Act.
The
whole purpose of the Act would be defeated if the provisions of the
Tenancy Act were made applicable to it. If that were the intention, tM
Tenancy Act were made applicable to it. If that were the intention, the
legislature would have provided for it. As regards compensation, no provision has been made in the Act for payment of any compensation for
gr<:at hardship by being asked to give

## Text

:a 006
DASAUDHA SINGH & ORS. ETC. ETC.
v.
STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.
November 16, 1972
(With connected appeals)
[A. N. GROVER, K. K. MATHEW AND A. K. MUKHERJEA, Ji.J
East Pun;ab Utilisation of Lands A.ct
1949-Ss. 7 and 11-ScopeWhtthtr afttr .th.e expiry of the lease the owntl' can get back liis propcrtyPower of the Collector under S. 7(1 )-Wlwher eviction possible onlv under
Pun/ab Tenancy A.ct.
·
A
B
Section 7 of the East Punjab Utilisation of Lands Act 1949, provides c
'that wbero any land taken possession of by the Collector under Section 3
is, on the expiry of the lease to be returned to the owner, the Collector
may, after enquiry, specify by order in writing, the person to whom pos·
UISlion of the land shall be given and that delivery of possession of land
shall be a full discharge of the Collector of all liability etc.
Further
where the right person cannot be found, the Collector shall aftlx a notice
on the land declaring it to have been released.
After such a notice, the
Collector or the Government shall uot be liable for nny compensation.
D
Section 11 provides that the Collector may use force 'for enforcing- his
order made under this Act.
In the appeals, the main question for detern1ination was the scope,
ambit and interpretation of S. 7 read with S. 11 of the Act. It waa contended by the appellants that under S. 7, the Collector had no po9•er to
evict a lessee after the expiry of the lease. For that purpose resort must
be had to the provisions of the Punjab Tenancy Act 1887, of the Oenerai
E
Lav:.
Dismissing the appeal,
HELD : ( 1) Section 7 (!) of the Act cannot be read in isolation, but
bas to' be interpreted in the light of the purpose and scheme of the Act
as also the other relevant provisions. The sole purpose for which the Act
wu enacted was to ensure that such lands as were capable of producing
food or fodder but which owing to the neglect on the part of the owners
were not beina C'Ultivated, are utilised for cultivation.
Under S. 3,
the
Collector is empowered to take possession of any cultivable land which
remained fallow for the last six or more harvests.
The Collector was
to give a lease for the minimum period Of 7 years, but not more thaa
20 years.
The tenant, however, knew beforehand that on the expiry of
the period of the lease, he would have to surrender possession to the
owner.
The Act, '"'where contemplated that tl:e owner should be completely
depfr:ed of his ownership right. The compensation to which he was en·
!.'l!«i under s. 4 was for the temporary deprivation of the exercise of hi<
ow,ltrsliip rights. [101 I Hl
F
(ii) Section 7(1) when read in the context clearly shows that it was
H
intended to empower the Collector to make an order in writing after the
'
expiry of the lease saying that tM ·possession of the land shaU be given
to the person named or specified in the order. The words. "to whom pos·
session of land shall be given' contained the mandate under which
the
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
DASAUDHA SINGH v. HARYANA (Grover, J.)
1001·
Collector derived powers of directing that the possession of the land was.
IO be given by the tooant to the owner whose name was •pecified in the
Collector's order. If the tenant did not comply with the order or direction
made under s. 7, the Collector could use such steps or force as was nece•-
•111)' for compliance with the order. (1013 CJ
(iii)-The answer to the question that eviction could take place OLiy
under the Tenancy Act or the general Jaw, and not under Section 7(1)
di. the Act, is that tl:le East Punjab Utilisation of Lands Act 1949 WM
intended to be exhaustive for the purpose for which it was enacted. It
is hardly possible to regard a tenant of the Collector under the Act as
falling within the definition of a 'tenant' under the Tenancy Act.
The
whole purpose of the Act would be defeated if the provisions of the
Tenancy Act were made applicable to it. If that were the intention, tM
Tenancy Act were made applicable to it. If that were the intention, the
legislature would have provided for it. As regards compensation, no provision has been made in the Act for payment of any compensation for
gr<:at hardship by being asked to give up all lands, but that hardship could
to alleviated, or some relief given by the legislature alone. [1016 HJ
ClvtL APPELLATE JUR1so1cTION : Civil Appeals Nos. 825831 & 956 & 823/1972.
Civil Appeals Nos. 825-831 & 956 of 1971.
Appeals by certificate from the judgment and order dated
February 23, 1972 of the Punjab & Haryana High Court at
Chandigarh in Civil Writ Nos. 2147, 2168-2172, 2200 and 2185
of 1971.
Civil Appeal No. 823 of 1972.
Appeal by certificate from the judgment and
order dated
February 23, 1972 of the Punjab & Haryana High Court at
Chandigarh in Civil Writ No. 2112 of 1971.
L. N. Singhvi, B. Datta and S. K. Dhingra, for the appellant
(in C. As. Nos. 825 & 826/72).
B. Datta and S. K. Dhingra, for the appellants
(in C.A.
Nos. 828/72).
B. Datta, for the appellants (in C.A. Nos. 827, 829-831 &
956/72).
Bishan Narain and B. D. Sharma, for respondents Nos. 1 & 2
(in C.As. Nos. 825-829, 831 and 956/72 and respondent No. I
in C.A. No. 830/72).
N. S. Das Bahi, for the resiwndent No. 52 (.in C.A. No. 826
1972).
H
S. C. Manchandda and J. C. Ta/war, for respondents
(in
C.As. Nos. 827, 828 & 856/72).
G'. S. Chatterjee, for respondents (in C.A. No. 829/72).
lOOS
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1973] 2 S.C.R.
Urmi/a Kapoor and Kamlesh Bansal, for respondents
(in
A
oC.As. Nos. 830, 831 & 956/72).
•
D. S. Golani and Kai/ash Mehta. for the appellant (in C.A.
No. 823/72).
B. D. Sharma, for respondent No. 1 (in C.A. No. 823/72).
S. S. Khanduja, for respondent Nos. 2-5 & 9-11
(in C.A.
Nos. 823/72).
The Ju4gment of the Court was delivered by
GROVER, J. In these appeals by certificate from a judgment of
tho Punjab & Haryana High Court the main question requiring
determination relates to the scope, ambit and true interpretation
·Of s. 7 read with s. 11 of the East Punjab Utilization of Lands
Act, 1949, hereinafter called the 'Act'.
We need state the facts only in C.A. 825/72
(Dasaudha
Singh & Others v. State of Haryana) . The Collj:etor Kamal leased
out an area of 1154 Acres in villages Pehowa and Murtzapur
jointly to Kamal Cooperative Society Ltd.,
Pehowa and
the
Lyalpur Coop. Joint Farming Society, Murtzapur under s. S of
the Act. bWing to some dispute which arose subsequent to the
loase between the two societies the Registrar gave an award o•
the matter having been referred to him for arbitration. According to that award '!he entire land in village Murtzapur and 172
Acres of land in village Pehowa were given to the Lyalpur
Society and the remaining 357 Acres of land in village Pehowa
to the Kamal Society. The lease was originally for a certain
number of years but it was extended for a period of twenty years
which is the maximum period for which a lease could be granted
under the Act.
By a notice dated May 17, 1971 the Sub-Divisional Officer, Kaithal. issued a notice to the lessees under s. 7
of the Act. In the notice it was stated, inter alia, that the original
owners had applied for the return of"the land leased out as the
period of the lease had expired.
The lessees were required to
hand over possession to the original owners. On June 15, 1971
the Sub-Divisional Officer passed an oriier directing the Tehsildar
to take possession of the land and give actual possession there-
'Of to the original owners. These proceedings were challenged
in the High Court un4er Art. 226 of the Constitution. The High
Court disposed of' the writ petition together with the other writ
petitions which had been filed on sjmilar grounds by a common
B
c
D
E
F
G
;
judgment dismissing all the petitions.
,
In order to appreciate the points in controversy the relevant
II
provisions of the Act may be referred to as also the background
1n which the Act came to be enacted. According to the State'
DASAUDHA SINGH~· HAR.YANA (Grover, J.)
1009
A
ment of Objects and Rea.sons in the Bill large. tracts of fertile
land had remained encultivated due to the negligence or absence
of displaced. local landlorci. The policy of the Gov~ent ~
not to leave any cultivable land unsown as far as possible which
was necessary to attain self-sufficiency ~ the matter of food .. If
timely action was not taken a large portion of the population
A
would have to face· starvation after 1950 when it was proposed
to stop all imports of foodgrains from abroad. The Government
had tried its best to persuade the landlords to cultivate the lands.
There was, however, likelihood of large tracts of fertile and cultivable lands remaining unsown during .Rabi 194~-59. The Bill
which was introduced was, therefore, aimed at bnng:mg about all
c
available land in the East Punjab under fodder and foodgrain
crops.
D
E
The definitions of "land", "owner" and "tenant" as given in
.s. 2 are as follows :
(a) "Land" means land which is not urban land and is
not occupied as the site of any building in a town
or village but does not include land which is leased
by Government or Custodian under any law other
than this Act".
(f) "Owner" means a person having a proprietary right
in the land and includes an allottee, a usufructuary
mortgagee or a lessee".
(h) "Tenant" means a person to whom land is leased by
the Collector under the provisions of this Act".
By virtue of s. 3 the Collector could issue a notice to the owner
of any land which had not been cultivated for the specified
period and if he did not find the explanation of the land owner
F
to be satisfactory he could take possession of the same for the
purpose of the Act. This the Collector could do notwithstanding
any law to the contrary. Section 4 provided for payment of compensation where possession of any land had been taken under
s. 3. Under s. 5 the Collector, after taking possession under s. 3,
could lease out the land to any person on such terms and condiG
tions as he deemed fit for the purpose of growing fodder and
food crops. The period of lease could not be less than 7 years
or more than 20 years. Section 6 conferred power on the Collector to detennine lease in certain cases. It may be mentioned
thats. 6 was o:nitted by PU!Iljab Act 11 of 1951 but it was inserted by a later Act No. 24 of 1957. According to sub-s. (2)
H
where a lease had been determined by the C-ollector the lessee
was not to be given any compensation.
Section 6 was further
amended and substituted by Haryana Act 35 of 1971.
Owing
to certain decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court it was
1010
SUPREME COURT :REPORTS
[1973) 2 s.c.a.
provided in sub-s. ( 1) that the Collector shall have the power to
A
!
determine the lease after affording a reasonable opportunity to
the tenant to show cause why .his lease should not be determined
and the possession of the land taken. Sub-sections ( 3) and ( 4)
were added in these terms :
Sub-s. ( 3) "The principles embodied in the various provisions
B
of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, shall not
apply to any proceedings under this Act.
Sub-s. ( 4) No civil or revenue Court shall have jurisdiction to
entertain any suit or proceedings in respect of the
determination of lease or eviction of a tenant".
Sections 7 and 11 are material for our purposes. They are reproduced below --
S. 7 (1 ) "Where any land taken possession of by the Colloctor
μnder s. 3 is on the expiry of the lease to be returned
to the owner, the Collector niay after making such
inquiry, if any, as he considers necessary, specify by
order in writing the person to whom possession· of
the land shall be given".
( 2) The delivery of possession of land to the person
specified in any order made unde.r sub-s. ( 1 ) shall
be a full discharge of the Collector from all liability
c
0
in respect of such delivery but shall not prejudice
E
ar..y rights in respect of the land which any other
person may be entitled by due process of law to enforce against the person to whom possession of the
land is so delivered.
( 3) Where the person to whom possession of any land is
to be given s;annot be found and has no agent or
F
other person empowered to accept delivery on his
behalf, the Collector shall cause a notice declaring
that the land is released to be affixed on some cons-
. picuous part of the land.
( 4) On issue of the notice referred to in sub-s. ( 3) the
l!ind specified in the notice shall be deemed to have
G
been delivered to the person entitled to the possession thereof, and the Government or the Collector
shall not be liable for any compensation or other
claim in respect of the land for any period after the
said date".
S. 11 "The Collector may take or cause to be taken such
H
steps and use or cause to be used such force as may
in his opinion be reasonably JJ.ecessary for securing
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
DASAUDHA SINGH v. HARYANA (Grover,!.)
1011
compliance with any order made by him under this
Act".
Section ,14 provided for appeal and revision by
a_ny
person
aggrieved by an order passed by the Collector. Sectt?n 16 empowered the State Government t~ make. i:ute~ for carrying out the
provisions of the Act. The Pun1ab Ut1hzat10n of Land Rules
1950 were framed in exercise of that power but_ the Rules dealt
only with matters which are not relevant. By Ordinance ~o. 8
p.iblished in the Haryana Government
Gazette . Ext~a?rdmary
dated September 18, 1970 a new section, s. 14A was mserted.
This section was as follows :-
"Bar of jurisdiction-No civil court shall have
jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceedings in respect of the eviction of any person to whom land has
been leased under Section 5".
The aforesaid section has been subsequently omitted by another
amendment but it is admitted that during the period under consideration it was in force.
The main point which was agitated before the High Court and
has been agitated before us on behalf of the appellant is that
even on the . expiry of the term of the lease no power has been
conferred on the Collector under- s. 7 to order restoration of
possession to the owners. It is submitted that all that s. 7(1)
provides is to empower the Collector to make an inquiry and
then specify by an order in writing the persons to whom possession of the land is to be given. In other words he can qnly
declare who is to be treated as owner for the purpose of restoration of possession. He cannot further order that there s!)ould be
a restoration of possession either to him or to the owner. For
that purpose resort must be had to the provisions of the Punjab
Tenancy Act 1887 or the general law under which a tenant or
a lessee can be evicted afte~ the term of his lease has come to
an end.
The procedure which is prescribed,
according to this
argument by sub-s. (1) of s. 7, does not relate to the process by
which the eviction of the tenant can be effected.
There is no
question of any automatic or voluntary ejectment.
Now sub-s. ( 1) of s. 7 is somewhat unhappily worded.
On
a cursory reading of it an impression is created that it confers a
limited power on the Collector to make an inquiry and declare
who the person is to whom the possession of the land is to be
restored. But this provision cannot be read in isolation and has
to be interpreted in the light of the purpose and scheme of the
Act as also the other relevant provisions. There can be no manner of doubt that the sole purpose for which the Act was enacted was to ensure that such lands as were capable of producing
B-L521 Sup. Cl/73
.
·
1012
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(}973] 2 S.C.R,
food or fodder but which owing to the neglect on the part of the
· owners were not being cultiva.ted should be utilisei:I for cultivation and for growing food and fodder crops.
The condition precedent for applying s. 3 under which the Collector could take
pmsession was that the land should hav.e remained uncultivated
for t!.ie last six or more harvests.
The Collector was to give a
lease which was to be for a minimun1 peroid of 7 years but which
could be upto a maximum period of 20 years.
This period was
obviously prescribed because it v•as considered that the tenant
should have enough period for investing money, putting in his
own effort and derive the maximum benefit by cultivating the land
leased to him.
That served two purposes; firstly it provided an
incentive to him to work hard and make full use of cultivation
of that land so as to reap as many crops as he could out of it.
The second purpose was tha.t by his efforts the land was bound to
improve if he was to get benefit out of it. Normalli· it would be
expected that the tenant would not only spend som~ money of
his own .on the improvement of the land but he might also effect
improvements of ·a substantial nature, particularly, when the lease
was to be for a period of 20 years.
He, however, knew before
hand that on the expiry of the period of the le~se, which in all
the present cases was for 20 years, he would have to surrender
possession to the owner.
A printed copy of the lease has been
produced !;!efore us. It is com1r10n ground that all the leases in
the present cases were on the same terms as are to be found in
this printed lease.
According to clause 7 of the lease the lessee
was enjoined to use the land only for the purpose of sowing food
arid fodder crops and for no other purpose.
Clause 8 shows
that the lessee was under an obligation to reclaim
and bring
under cultivatfon 50% of the land leased by a particular date
and the remaining hal.f by another date .. Under clause 10 he
could erect buildings, sink wells, instal tuliewells etc. but it was
made quite clear that he had no right to claim compensation for
the improvements effected -by him nor was he entitled to remove
without the previous c6nsent in writing of the Collector any material equipment or machinery attached by him to the land. Clause
11 empowered the Collector to determine tile lease and take
possession of the land in case of any breach by the lessee of any
of the conditions of the lease.
Under clause 8 the lessee
was
bound on tile detennination of the lease by affiux of time or otherwise to peaceably vacate and give up
possession of the land.
Clause 15 n;1ade the lease subject to the provisions of the Act as
amended from time to time.
Aoart from the terms of tile lease, s. 6 conferred power on
the Collector to detennine the lease, even before its expiration
if the Jessee committed a breach of any of the terms or conditions thereof.
Section 8 provided for levy of a penalty in case
,.
A
f
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
(
c
D
E
F
DASAUDHA SINGH v. HARYANA (Grover, J.)
I 0 13
the tenant failed to grow food or fodder crops on the land leased
to him. It is thus clear that the Collector was empowered to take
possession from the owner only after a maximum period of 20
years for which he could lease it out to. a tenant. It was thus
clearly contemplated that on the expiry of that period the Collector would restore possession to the owner.
The Act no-where
contemplated that the owner should be completely deprived
of
his ownership rights. The compensation to which he was entitled
under s. 4 \'{as for the temporary deprivation of the exercise of
ownership rights for the period during which the possession of
the land had been taken over by the Collector and given on lease
to a tenant.
Section 7 (1) when read in
this context clearly
shows that it was intended to empower the Collector to make an
order in writing after the expiry of the lease
saying that the
possession of the land shall be given to .the person named
or
specified in the order.
The words "to whom possession of the
land shall be given" contained the mandate under which
the
Collector derived powers of directing that the possession of the
land was to be given by the tenant to the owner whose name was
specified in the Collector's order. The compulsory and the summary process by which that order could be enforced is to be found
in s. 11.
If the tenant did not comply with the order or direction made under s. 7 the Collector could take or cause to be
taken such steps or use 'or cause to be used such force as was
necessary for securing compliance with the order made
under
s. 7(1). Sub-ss. (2), (3) and (4) reinforce the above interpretation of sub-s. (1) .a>f s. 7.
Once delivery of possession of
the land to the person specified in the order made under sub-s.
( 1) had been effected the Collector stood discharged from
all
liability iq respect of such deliveT).
Sub-ss. ( 3) and ( 4) were
meant for a similar purpose when a person to whom possession
of land was to be given could not be found.
We are, therefore,
unable to accept the contention raised on behalf of the appellants
that s. 7 read with s. 11 of the Act did not empower the Collector to make an order which would involve tlJe eviction of the
tenant in case he refused to deliver possession to the person
specified therein.
The contention raised chat s. 7 of the
Act is violative
of
Art. 14 of the Constitution .because there would be two or more
remedies available to the authorities to which they can resort is
wholly untenable. Section 14-A contained a complete bar to the
civil court having any jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceedings in respect of the eviction of any person to whom land
had been leased out under s. 5 of the Act. Sub-s. 4 of s. 6 as
amended also bars the jurisdiction of any civil or revenue court
to entertain any proceedings in respect of the determination of
lease .or eviction of a tenant. 1.t has been suggested that sub-s.
1014
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1973] 2 s.c.R.
( 4) of s. 6 is confined only to a case where a lease has been
A
determined by the Collector before its expiry under the provisions
of sub-s. ( 1) of s. 6. Sub-s. ( 4) is in general terms and. we are
unable to see how it can be confined only to a lease determined
under sub-s. ( 1) of that section. It appears tl:at it was primarily
for this reason that s. 14A has now been deleted as already
mentioned.
B
The next q4estion which has been vehemently argued is
whether the provisions of the Tenancy A<>t are applicable and
whether the eviction could take place only under that Act:
Reliance has also been placed on t!le provisions of the Tenancy
Act for sustaining the argument that no eviction could take
place of the tenant unless compensation had been awarded to
him under the provisions of that Act. "Land" has been defined
by the Tenancy Act bys. 4(1) to mean, land which is not occupied as the site of any building in town or village and is occui.ied
or has been let for agricultural purposes or for purposes subservient to agriculture, or for pasture and includes the sites
of
buildings and other structures on such land. "Tennat" has been
defined by s. 4( 5) to mean a person who holds land under another person and is, or but for a special contract would b_e, liable
to pay rent for that land to that other person. Certain categories
of persons are not included but we are not concerned with them.
Sub-s. ( 6) defines "Landlord" to mean a person under whom a
tenant holds land and. to whom he is, or but for a special contract
would be, liable to pay rent for that land. Section 40 giv::s the
grounds of ejectment of tenants for a fixed term and s. 42 places
certain restrictions on the ejectment of the tenant. He shall not
be ejected otherwise than in execution of a decree for ejectment
except in cases mentioned illl clauses (a) and (b) of that section.
Under s. 48 relief against forfeiture can be given in case~ mentioned therein to a tenant. Chapter VI deals with improvements
by landlords and tenants. Under s. 64 a tenant not having a
right of occupancy can make improvements on his tenancy with
the assent of his landlord.
Where improvements are begun in
anticipation of ejectment the tenant cannot claim any compensation by virtue of s. 66. Under s. 67 if a landlord tenders to a
tenant a lease of his tenancy for a term of not less than 20 years
from the date of the tender at the rent then paid by the tenant or
at sue)! othet rent as may be agreed on the tender if accepted by
the tenant the 'claim to compensation in respect of improvements
previously made on the tenancy stands barred.
Section 68 savs
that a tenant who has made improvements on his tenancy shall
not be ejected until he has received compensation for the improvements made by him.
This fa, however, subject to other
sections.
D
E
F
G
H
(
A
B
c
D
F
H
DASAUDHA SINGH v. HARYANA (Grover, I.)
!015
As has been noticed already, in the Act the word "tenant"
has b~en defined to mean a person to whom the land is leased by
the Collector under the provisions of the A.ct. The definition of
"land" is also different from the one given in the Tenancy Act.
There is no definition of landlord at all in the Act. The entire
scheme of the Act establishes that it was intended to be exhaustive
for the purpose for which it was enacted. It is hardly possible
to regard a tenant of the Collector under the Act as falling within the definition of a "tenarit" under the Tenancy Act. The
whole purpose of the Act would be defeated if the provisions of
the Tenancy Act were made applicable to it. If that had been intended there was nothing to stop the legislature from making a
provision in the Act itself about the applicability of the Tenancy
Act. The High Court appears to be right in coming to the conclusion that from the provisions of the Act no intention can be
attributed to the legi~lature of creating a. relationship of landlord
and tenant between the Collector and the tenant as defined by
the Act of the same nature as was provided for by the Tenancy
Act.
Once the above concli;sion is reached the argument based on
the provisions of the Tenancy Act with regard to compensation
for improvements is bound to fail.
As regards the general submission tliat a person cannot be deprived of his property without
payment of compensation it must be remembered that no provision has been made for payment of any compensation for such
improvements.
The tenants, namely, the appellants had agreed
to the term in 1he lease by which they were bound that they would
not claim any compensation for the improvements made by them
·during the currency of the lease.
Moreover when
the tenant
knew that the lease was for as long a period as 20 years, improvements must have been made with the full knowledge 1hat on the·
expiry of that period possession would have to be surrendered.
The ~enants had also reaped all the advantage that they could
by having a lease for such a long period. It is true that in the
Act itself s. 4 provides for payment of compensation to owners
and s .. 6 contains a specific clause that where a lease has been
determined by the Collector the lessee shall not be entitled to
any compensation.
Section 7 does not contain any such provision.
It is significant that although where the
Iegislatt1re
intended to provide for compensation it did so and where it did
not intend to do so it was clearly provided that the tenant shall
not be entitled to any compensation.
Section 7 is silent on the
question of compensation.
The legislature being fully alive to
the matter of compensation it would be legitimate to assume that
it did not intend to make any provision when possession was to
be handed over by the tenant to the original owner pursuant to
1016
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1973] 2 S.C.R,
an order made. under s. 7. The reason apparently for not. making
A
any provision for compensation one way or the other was that
it was clearly contemplated that the tenant would have to give
up possession on the expiry of the term of the lease which was
for a long period and during which he was expected. as has been
observe_d before, to derive the maximum benefit by means of cultivation of food and foodgrain crops. Since the provisions of
B
the Tenancy Act have been held to be inapplicable lo the tenant
as defined by the Act we are unable to hold that he was entitled
to any compensation before giving up possession in compliance
with the order made under s. 7 of the Act.
Before the High Court it had been urged on behalf of the
appellants that they could be ejected only in accordance with
C
the provisions of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act 1953.
The High Court held that owing to s. 21 (I) nothinE contained
in. that Act shall affect any land held by a tenant or lessee under
the Government. Mr. Dutta who represented some of the appellants before us did not press any argument relating to the applicability of the provisions of the Land Tenures Act to the case of o
the ;;.ppellants.
At any rate, and this position has been rightly
conceded by the counsel for the respondents, the appellants cannot be debarred from taking benefit of or seeking protection
μnder any enactment if they can establi~h that they are governed
bv its 1mwisions
'
Dr.' Singhvi who argued Civil Appeal No. 825/72 has raised
some other points in addition to those already disposed of.
According to him after the Registrar of Cooperative Societies
had settled the dispute between the Kamal Society and the
Lyallpur Society the latter took no interest in 175 acres of land
situate in village Pehowa which had been allotted to it and which
were brought under cultivation by the appellants Dasuadha Singh
and others. This, it is said was done with the tacit approval of
the Collector. It is, however, admitted that the lease was in
favour of the aforesaid societies and the allegation that the appellants brought this land under cultivation with the tacit approval
of the Collector contained in para 5 of the writ petition was
denied in the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents.
In the Jamabandi entries of 1963-64 the entry was as follows:-
"The Collector, Karna!, Lessor, Karna\ Cooperative Farn1ers, Kamal, Lyallpur Coope~ati~e Farmers,
Kamal in equal shares, lessees.
CulUvaUon Lyal.lpur
Cooperative Farn1ers, Karna!, through Dasaudha Singh
................ tenants-at-will".
It is difficult to understand how the Jamabandi e.ntry helps the
appellants at all. It seems to indicate that the persons who were
E
F.
G
H
...
(
t
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
DASAUOHA SINGH v. HARYANA (Grover, I.)
1017
shown as tenants-!lt-will were cultivating it under the societies
which were !he lessees.
They could not, therefore, claim any
better rights than the societies which were the tenants of -the
Collector and amenable to his jurisdiction under the Act. It may
be mentioned that in the High Court this point does not appear
to have been argued and we do not have the benefit of any finding of that court on that poi"nt. It has. further, been submitted
on behalf of the appellants that before any orders were made
under s. 7 of the Act the tenants or the persons in occupation of
the lands in question should have been given an opportunity of
being heard to satisfy the well· settled rule of natural justice.
Under s. 7 the Collector has to decide and name the owners to
whom possession shall be given.
The tenant can have no locus
standi in that matter in which if there are any rival claimants
they aione would be interested. The scheme of s. 7 is such that
it is not possible to read into it any requirement of a nootice being'
issued to, the tenants before any ord :r is made by the Collector
under that· section.
Before the High Court only in one case i.e. C. W. 217 l /7 l it
was pointed ounhat the petitionel'S therein had purchased 6 acres
of land from the original land owner and as such the Collector
could not legally dispossess them from that portion of the land.
The Additional Advocate General conceded that in case that
area had been purchased by the petitioners in that writ petition
they would not be dispossessed and the possession would be restorecl to them if dispossession had taken place. On behalf of a
number of appellants it has been contended that several portions
of lands in dispute have been purchased from the original owners
and the purchasers are actually in' possession. It is riot disputed
by the counsel for the respondents that if any person has acquired the ownership rights in any of tl'te lands which were the
subject matter of the writ petition he can approach the Collector
who will consider his case fully and if it is proved that he has
become an owner then his possession will not be disturbed and
no orders will be made with regard to the area in his occupation
or possession under s. 7.
This will fully safeguard the interest'
of those persons who have acquired ownership rights eithe~ before or during the pendency of the proceedings in the High Court
or even in this Court.
1018
SUI-REME COURT REPORTS
[1973] 2 S.C.R,
Lastly we cannot help observing that the appellants will be
put to a good deal of hardship by being asked to give up all lands
wh\ch they had been cultivating for so many years
and which
probably are the main source of their livelihood. But that hardship could be alleviated or some relief given by legislation alone.
The court is unable to do anything in the matter.
In the result the appeals fail and they are dismissed but there
will be no order as to costs.
s.c.
Appeals di~missed.
A
n