- (1.) The plaintiff-appellants, who are the tenants on the land in dispute, filed a suit alleging that they have become the owners under the provisions of Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955 (hereinafter called 'the Act') and they are in possession of the same as owners and that the defendant-respondents have nothing to do with the land in dispute. The prayer made in the plaint was that a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendant-respondents from interfering with the plaintiff-appellants' possession over the land in dispute be granted and the defendant-respondents be restrained from getting appraised and distributed the crop Rabi, 1963, and the subsequent crops of the land. The claim of the plaintiff-appellants have become the owners of the land in dispute. It was pleaded in the written statement that the defendant-respondents still continue to be the owners of the suit land as the application of the plaintiff-appellants for acquiring the proprietary rights was still pending and had not been finally disposed of. The parties contested on the following issues :- 1. Whether the plaintiffs have become the owners of the land in dispute ? 2. Whether this Court has got no jurisdiction to try the suit ? 3. Relief. Issue No. 1 was decided by the trial Court in favour of the plaintiff-appellants. Issue No. 2 was decided against the defendant-respondents and the suit of the plaintiff-appellants was decreed. Dissatisfied by the judgment and decree of the trial Court, the defendant-respondents filed an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge who reversed the finding of the trial Court on Issue No. 1 but affirmed the finding of the trial Court on Issue No. 2. Consequently the appeal was allowed and the plaintiff-appellants' suit was dismissed. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court, the plaintiffs have filed this second appeal.
(2.) The only issue which now survives for decision is issue No. 1. The facts are not disputed. It is proved on record that the plaintiff-appellants were the tenants on the land in dispute at the time of coming into force of the Act. They made an application under Section 22(2) of the Act to the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, for conferring proprietary rights on them. The Assistant Collector allowed their application under Section 23(1) of the Act and the proprietary rights were conferred on them accordingly. They also paid the first instalment of compensation as required under Section 23(3) of the Act and a certificate of the proprietary rights was also granted to them. Dissatisfied by the order of Assistant Collector, the respondents filed an appeal before the Collector who did not disturb the finding so far as granting of the proprietary rights was concerned, but only remanded the case to the Assistant Collector for redetermination of the compensation. The provision of Section 23 of the Act is quite clear and the learned Additional District Judge has legally erred in interpreting this provision. Section 23 of the Act is in the following terms :- "23. Determination of compensation for acquisition of proprietary rights - (1) On receipt of an application under Section 22, the prescribed authority after satisfying itself that the applicant is entitled to acquire proprietary rights in any land under this Chapter shall determine the compensation payable in respect thereof in accordance with the principles set out in Section 26. 2. On determination of such compensation the prescribed authority shall by order in writing require the applicant to deposit the first instalment of the compensation as prescribed under Section 27 in a Government treasury or a sub-treasury or with the prescribed authority and to produce before it a receipt for the same within a period of fifteen days from the date of the service of such order : Provided that the prescribed authority may, on sufficient cause being shown, extend the period specified in this sub-section, so, however, that the aggregate period does not exceed one month. 3. Where the first instalment of compensation has been deposited in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (2), the prescribed authority shall issue to the applicant a certificate in the prescribed form declaring him to be the landowner in respect of the land specified in the certificate. 4. On and from the date of the issue of a certificate under sub-section (3), the proprietary rights of the landowner in the land specified in the certificate shall be deemed to have been extinguished and such proprietary rights shall vest in the applicant free from all encumbrances and as from such date the applicant shall cease to be liable to pay any rent in respect of such land to the landowner : Provided that - (a) the amount of compensation payable by the applicant shall be a first charge on such land; (b) the amount of any encumbrance existing on such land on the date of the issue of the certificate shall be valid charge on the amount of compensation payable by the applicant under this Act. 5. Every certificate issued under sub-section (3) shall be conclusive evidence of the acquisition by the applicant of proprietary rights in the land specified therein notwithstanding anything contained in the Indian Registration Act, 1908 (XVI of 1908), no such certificate shall be required to be registered under that Act."
(3.) reading of this provision shows that when an application is made under Section 22, the prescribed authority, when it is satisfied that the applicant is entitled to acquire proprietary rights in the land, shall determine the compensation payable in respect thereof. The compensation is to be paid in accordance with the principles set out in Section 26. After the compensation is determined under sub-section (1) of Section 23, the prescribed authority shall by order in writing require the applicant to deposit the first instalment of the compensation as prescribed under Section 27 in a Government Treasury and to produce a receipt for the same within a period of fifteen days from the date of service of such order. When the first instalment of compensation is deposited in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (2), then the prescribed authority has to issue a certificate in the prescribed form declaring the applicant to be a landowner. Once such a certificate is issued in the prescribed form, from that date the proprietary rights of the landowner in the land specified in the certificate shall be deemed to have been extinguished and such proprietary rights shall be deemed to have been conferred on the tenants free from all encumbrances and from that date the tenant shall cease to be liable to pay any rent in respect of such land. So the wording of the Section is quite clear. Admittedly, in this case the certificate of ownership was issued by the prescribed authority, as required under Section 23(3) of the Act, and the Collector on appeal never cancelled the certificate of proprietary right but only remanded the case for redetermination of compensation. It is a settled law of interpretation that a simple grammatical meaning is to be given to the language of the provision. Nothing is to be added or subtracted. The learned Additional District Judge has legally erred in interpreting the Section otherwise and has misconstrued the language of the provision. The provisions of Section 23 of the Act are fully complied with and the tenant-plaintiffs were issued the sale certificate after they deposited the first instalment of compensation.;