BOGHA SINGH Vs. HARNARARIAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S.Harnarain Singh and S. Gurdev Singh, sons of S. Nanak Singh of Bahadur brought a suit for possession of agricultural land measuring 21 bighas and 17 biswas of which forcible possession had been taken by Bogha Singh and others.

(2.) In order to appreciate the point involved in this appeal, it would be necessary to set out very briefly the course of litigation between the parties. The defendants Bogha Singh and others admittedly were occupancy tenants under S. Harnarain Singh. On the allegation that Bogha Singh and others had failed to cultivate the land in their occupation, an order dated 11th of Chet. 1998 Bk. (24th of March, 1942), was passed on the petition of S. Harnarain Singh making an order of dispossession of the occupancy tenants under Section 38 of the Punjab Tenancy Act. In pursuance of that order, possession was handed over to the landlords a few months later. Subsequent entries in the Jamabandis show the land to be under the ownership and possession of the landlords. Bogha Singh and others took forcible possession of this land on 4th of September, 1952, and thereupon the present suit was brought by the landlords Harnarain Singh and Gurdev Singh for ejectment of the defendants Bogha Singh and others. This suit was decreed by the Subordinate Judge on 31st of March, 1954, and the appeal against this decree has been dismissed by the learned District Judge, Barnala.

(3.) In Second Appeal, it has been urged by the counsel for Bogha Singh and others that they are entitled to remain in possession of the land as the proprietary rights of landlords in it have been extinguished by virtue of Section 3 of the Patiala and East Punjab States Union Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act, 1953 (Act No. 3 of 1953). Under clause (h) of Section 2 of this Act, an occupancy tenant means "a person who at the commencement of this Act, is or is deemed to be an occupancy tenant." Under the Explanation to sub-clause (iv), "a person is deemed to be an occupancy tenant if he is recorded as an occupancy tenant in the annual records on the 11th March, 1940, and has been dispossessed or deprived of his rights to the occupation of the land at any time after the 11th March, 1940, but has not been granted any relief under the Patiala and East Punjab State Union Abolition of Biswedari Ordinance, 2006 Bk." Bogha Singh and others were recorded as occupancy tenants in the annual records on 11th March, 1940, and they were dispossessed or deprived of their rights sometime after 11th March, 1940. Under this clause, Bogha Singh and others would certainly be regarded as occupancy tenants. There is however, a proviso to clause (h) of Section 2 that "no person who has abandoned his tenancy shall be deemed to be an occupancy tenant within the meaning of this clause." The dispute, therefore, narrow down to the proposition whether Bogha Singh and others had abandoned their tenancy.