# M. C. ChaRla and R v. Pillai, for the

- **Citation:** [1969] 1 S.C.R. 283
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1968-05-03
- **Bench:** J. C. Shah, V. Bhargava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/m-c-charla-and-r-v-pillai-for-the-4394
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Pepsu Tenancy and AgriculturG'[ Act 8 of 1953, s. 43(1)(b)-scope
of--if has retrospective operation conditions precedent for exercise of
jurisdiction by collector-whether order can be passed on subjective safis ..
faction or on judicial deternzination.
Certain tenants of land applied to the Collector, Sangrur and Bhatinda,
alleging that they had been forcibly deprived of the lands in May /June,
1943 and sought an order for restoration of possession under s. 43 of the
Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Act 8 of 1953.
The Collector granted
the applications and ordered possession to be restored to the tenants. His
orders were confi'rmed by the Commissioner who was of the view that
an order under s. 43 could be passed by the Collector on his subjective
satisfaction that a person was in wrongful or unauthorised possession of
land.
The Financial Commissioner also, confirmed the orders on the
g'round that substantial justice had been done by the subordinate revenue
authorities.
The first respondent challenged these orders by a writ petition but this
was dismissed by a Single Bench holding
that the Act 8 of 1953
was
a code in itself and provided for a complete machinery for the decision
of disputes like the resent one.
But a Division Bench in appeal allowed
the petition and held that Act 8 of 1953 which came into force
on
December 13, 1953, had no retrospe~tive operation.
On appeal to this Court
HELD, dismissing the appeals :
(i) Apart from the allegation of the tenants that the first respondent
was in wrongful or unauthorised possession of the lands previously occu~
pied by them, it was further necessary to establish that under cl. (b) of
s. 43 (I) the petson in wrongful or unauthorisP....d possession was
not
'entitled to the use and occupation of the lands under the provisions of
the Act.
There was no provision which disentitled the first 'respondent
to the use and occupation of the lands.
Section 43(1) (b) therefore had
no application in the present case. The condition precedent to the investment of jurisdiction in the Collector being absent, the revenue authorities
had no power to pass the order in ejectment which they
purported to
p·ass.
·
(ii) The proceedings of the Collector are judicial in character and
although the trial is summary, the Collector is bound to exercise the
jurisdiction vested in him not on a subjective satisfaction, as the Commissioner assumed, but on a judicial determination of facts which invest him
with iurisdiction to pass an order in ejectment.
When the condition
precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction does not exist the Collector cannot
clothe himself with authority to pas·s the impugned orders. Furthe'rmore,
the High Court had rightly held the terms of cl. (b), s. 43 (I) had no
retrospective operation.
(iii) If the Collector had no jurisdiction except in the special condition
prescribed by s. 43, his order could not be sustained merely because
284
SUPRE:.IE COURT REPORTS
fl 969] I S.C.R.
another <tuthorily ma\', if th~ proceeding \\·ere before that authority. on
the findings recorded. have k'Tantcd relief to the tenants of restoration
to posscssiun of their respective landc:;,
Authorities which arc vested with
powers-judicial or quasi-judicial-can exercise their pO\vcr "·ithin
the
1imils of lhc'ir jurisdiciion and their actions without jurisdiction cannot
be sustained n1crcly b~causc another bodv or authority, which if lawfully
approached, may have jurisdiction to pass the order complained of.

## Text

A
•
'
B
c
D
•
E
•
F
•
G
•
H
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.
V •
BUAi ARDAMAN SINGH & ORS. ETC.
May 3, 1968
[J. C. SHAH AND V. BHARGAVA, JJ.)
Pepsu Tenancy and AgriculturG'[ Act 8 of 1953, s. 43(1)(b)-scope
of--if has retrospective operation conditions precedent for exercise of
jurisdiction by collector-whether order can be passed on subjective safis ..
faction or on judicial deternzination.
Certain tenants of land applied to the Collector, Sangrur and Bhatinda,
alleging that they had been forcibly deprived of the lands in May /June,
1943 and sought an order for restoration of possession under s. 43 of the
Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Act 8 of 1953.
The Collector granted
the applications and ordered possession to be restored to the tenants. His
orders were confi'rmed by the Commissioner who was of the view that
an order under s. 43 could be passed by the Collector on his subjective
satisfaction that a person was in wrongful or unauthorised possession of
land.
The Financial Commissioner also, confirmed the orders on the
g'round that substantial justice had been done by the subordinate revenue
authorities.
The first respondent challenged these orders by a writ petition but this
was dismissed by a Single Bench holding
that the Act 8 of 1953
was
a code in itself and provided for a complete machinery for the decision
of disputes like the resent one.
But a Division Bench in appeal allowed
the petition and held that Act 8 of 1953 which came into force
on
December 13, 1953, had no retrospe~tive operation.
On appeal to this Court
HELD, dismissing the appeals :
(i) Apart from the allegation of the tenants that the first respondent
was in wrongful or unauthorised possession of the lands previously occu~
pied by them, it was further necessary to establish that under cl. (b) of
s. 43 (I) the petson in wrongful or unauthorisP....d possession was
not
'entitled to the use and occupation of the lands under the provisions of
the Act.
There was no provision which disentitled the first 'respondent
to the use and occupation of the lands.
Section 43(1) (b) therefore had
no application in the present case. The condition precedent to the investment of jurisdiction in the Collector being absent, the revenue authorities
had no power to pass the order in ejectment which they
purported to
p·ass.
·
(ii) The proceedings of the Collector are judicial in character and
although the trial is summary, the Collector is bound to exercise the
jurisdiction vested in him not on a subjective satisfaction, as the Commissioner assumed, but on a judicial determination of facts which invest him
with iurisdiction to pass an order in ejectment.
When the condition
precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction does not exist the Collector cannot
clothe himself with authority to pas·s the impugned orders. Furthe'rmore,
the High Court had rightly held the terms of cl. (b), s. 43 (I) had no
retrospective operation.
(iii) If the Collector had no jurisdiction except in the special condition
prescribed by s. 43, his order could not be sustained merely because
284
SUPRE:.IE COURT REPORTS
fl 969] I S.C.R.
another <tuthorily ma\', if th~ proceeding \\·ere before that authority. on
the findings recorded. have k'Tantcd relief to the tenants of restoration
to posscssiun of their respective landc:;,
Authorities which arc vested with
powers-judicial or quasi-judicial-can exercise their pO\vcr "·ithin
the
1imils of lhc'ir jurisdiciion and their actions without jurisdiction cannot
be sustained n1crcly b~causc another bodv or authority, which if lawfully
approached, may have jurisdiction to pass the order complained of.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos. 1016
to 1050, I 052 to 1075 and I 077 to 1084 of 1964.
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated
May 14, 1959 of the Punjab High Court in L. P. Appeal No. 148
of 1968 etc.
N. S. Bindra and R. N. Sachrhey. for the appellant.
M. C. ChaRla and R. V. Pillai, for the respondents.
'The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Shah, J.
In this group of appeals the dispute relates to agricultural lands situate in village Dialpura-Bhaika, District Bhatinda
in the former State of Pcpsu and now in the State of Punjab. The
lands originally belonged to Bhai Arjan Singh. On his death in
1946 the lands devolved upon his son Rhai Ardaman Singh, the
first respondent in these appeals. Alleging that Bhai Arjan Sin)lh
forcibly deprived them of the lands some time in May-June 1943,
seventy tenants applied to the Collector Sangrur and
Bhatinda
for an order for restoration of possession under s. 43
of the
Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Act 8 of 1953. The Collector
granted the applications and ordered that possession he restored
to the tenants. The orders were confirmed in
appeal
by
the
Commissioner. The Commissioner was of the view that the order
under s. 43 could he passed hy the Collector on his subjective
satisfaction that a person was in wrongful or unauthorised possession of lands.
The Financial Commissioner confirmed the order
of the Commissioner on the ground that substantial justice had
been done bv the subordinate revenue authorities, and no interference with the orders was called for.
Bhai Ardaman Singh then filed writ
petitions in the
High
Coun of Punjab challenging the orders passed by the Financial
Commissioner_ The petitions were heard by Gosain, J. In the view
of the learned Judge Act 8 of 1953 was a complete code in itself
and provided for a complete machinery for the decision of disputes like the dispute before him.
He observed :
"Under this law Tribunals of special jurisdiction
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
have been created and invested
with
powers which
H
should enable them to effectively deal with disputes not
only those which arise between the landlord
and the
tenant, but: also those which arise between persons
.•
.-
-
,..
•
PUNJAB v. ARDAMAN SINGH (Shah, J.)
285
A
entitled to possession and persons wrongly dispossessing
them. It may be that in the latter case the enquiry contemplated to be made by the Collector is only summary
and that the aggrieved party may be able to have re-.
course finally to the civil court but the jurisdiction to
•
make enquiry and to order eviction has been given by
B
the law to the Collector."
In appeals under the Letters Patent the High Court reversed
the order passed by Gosain, J. The High Court was of the
opinion that Act 8 of 1953 which came into force on December
•
13, 1953, had no retrospective operation and that Gosain, J.,
.,
•
was in error in making an order for possession of the lands when
•
dispossession had taken place before the Act was brought into
c
force.
The High Court also held that the proceedings of the
Collector were vitiated because the Collector declined to give to
the first respondent opportunity to lead evidence which he desired
to lead. With certificate granted by the High Court, these appeals
have been preferred by the State of Punjab.
D
Section 43 of the Pepsu Act 8 of 1953 provides :
" ( 1) Any person who is in wrongful or unauthorised possession of any land-
(a) the transfer of which either by the act of parties
or by the operation of law is invalid under the
provisions of this Act, or
E
(b) to the use and occupation of which he is not entitled under the provisions of this Act, may, after
summary enquiry, be ejected by the Collector
who may also impose on such person a penalty
not exceeding five hundred rupees.
"
F
Clause (a) h_as evidently no application. It is not the ca~f
any party that there was any transfer of the lands which .was
-
valid by virtue of the provisions of the Act. The tenants alleged
that the first respondent was in wrongful or unauthorised posses-
..
sion of the lands previously occupied by them. But in order that
. ..
the jurisdiction of the Collector to hold a summary enquiry and
to pass the order complained of may be attracted, it was further
G
necessary to establish that under cl. (b) of s. 43 ( 1) the person
in wrongful or unauthoris_ed possession was not entitled to the use
and occupation of the lands under the provisions of the Act.
Counsel for the State of Punjab is unable to invite.our attention
to any provision which renders the first respondent disentitled by
virtue of the provisions of the Act to the use and occupation of
H
the lands. Section 43 ( 1) (b) has, therefore, no application. The
condition precedent to the investment of jurisdiction in the Collector being absent, the revenue authorities had no power to pass
the order in ejectment which they purported to pass.
L12 Sup. CI/68-4
28G
SUPREME COl:RT RI.PORTS
(196'1j J SCR
We must point out that the proceedings of the Collector arc
judicial in character. The trial is summary, but the Collector is
bound to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him not on a subjective satisfaction, as the Commissioner assumed, but on a judi-.
cial determination of facts which invest him with jurisdiction to
p.:ss an order in ejectmcnL
When the condition precedent to
the exercise of jurisdiction docs not exist the Collector can not
clothe himself with authority to pass the impugned orders.
We
also agree with the High Court that in view of the terms of cl. ( b),
s. 43 had no retrospective operation. On the view we take. it is
unnecessary to consider the argument advanced by '.Vlr.
Chagla
on behalf of the first respondent that s. 43 has no application 10
cases in which a dispu:c relatin~ to tenancy of land arises between the landlord and his tenant.
It i, also not necessary to consider in this group of appeals
whether the proceedings of the Collector were vitiated. because
a; alleged by the first resrondcn1 the Collector did
not afford
suflicie11t opportunity to lead evidence on the first
respondent's
p:ea th It there had been no
WH>ngful
dispossession
of
the
tcn;rnt>.
l\lr. Bindra on behalf of the State contended that in an,· c,·ent
!his Court should not countenance inlcrforcncc with !he imi1ugncd
o;·dcrs of the revenue ~1uthoritic;;., even if erroneous. hcc;1u..:c thll'.'IC
~uthorities have in passing the orders done substantial
justice.
Ccunsel contended that the tenants h'td been wrondullv deprived
0[ possession of the lands by the use of force oy the first respondent and the order rassed by 1J1e Collector though not
strictly
warranted by law was not liable to he disturbed by the High Court
in exercise of their iurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari.
We
arc unable to agree with that contention.
If the Collector had
no 1urisdiction ~xccpt in the special conditions
prescribed
by
s. 43, his order could rwt be sustained merely because another
authority may. if the rrocecding were before that authority. on
the findings recorded. have granted relief to the tenants of restoration to possession of their respective lands. Authorities which
a re vc:;ted with rower;-judicial or quasi-judicial---<:an exercise
their power within the limits of their jurisdiction and their actions
without jurisdiction cannot be sustained merely because another
body or authority which if lawfully approached. may have jurisdiction to pass the order complained of.
·rhc appeal:-; arc thcrcfl)r~ di;;;nii...;:-;cd \\·i1h cost~.
On.z hcarinμ
kc.
RK.P.S.
Arr>eals dismis<ed.
A
B
c
•
D
E
f
G
H