Holding

Under Sections 2 and 3 of the Punjab Occupancy Tenants' Vesting of Property Rights Act, 1952, occupancy tenants immediately before the appointed day acquire ownership by operation of law, extinguishing the landlord’s title, and omissions in revenue records or rent payments do not defeat this statutory vesting.

Summary

The case concerned lands occupied by respondents Nos.5‑15 since 1931. The Punjab Occupancy Tenants’ Vesting of Property Rights Act, 1952 became effective on 15 June 1951, vesting ownership in occupancy tenants. Although the tenants’ names were not entered in revenue records and they continued to pay rent until 1974, the Supreme Court held that the statutory vesting was not defeated by such omissions or rent payments. Sections 2 and 3 of the Act extinguished the landlord’s title and conferred absolute ownership on the tenants from the appointed day. Consequently, the appellants, the landlords, could not obtain a declaration of ownership or possession. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the High Court’s refusal of relief.

Issues considered

Whether occupancy tenants acquire ownership under the Punjab Occupancy Tenants' Vesting of Property Rights Act, 1952 despite their names not being recorded in revenue records.
Whether continued payment of rent by the tenants after the Act’s commencement defeats the statutory vesting of ownership.
Whether the landlord can claim ownership and possession of the land after the operation of the Act.

Legislation cited

Punjab Occupancy Tenants' Vesting of Property Rights Act, 1952s. 2, s. 3

Subjects

occupancy tenantvesting of property rightslandlord-tenantstatutory vestingestoppelland ownershipPunjab Occupancy Tenants' Vesting of Property Rights Act, 1952possession

Judgment

BAHADUR SINGH AND ORS. A
v.
SHANGARA SINGH AND ORS.

OCTOBER 24, 1994

[K. RAMASWAMY ANDN. VENKATACHALA, JJ.] B

Punjab Occupancy Tenant's Vesting of Property Rights Act, 1952-
Sections 2 and 3-0ccupancy tenants-Continuation in possession from
1931-Vesting of right of ownership in their favour by operation of law
from June 15, 1951-0mission to have their names recorded in revenue
records as occupancy tenants-Their accrued right of ownership not C
defeated-No estoppel against statute.

Respondents Nos. 5 to 15 were the tenants in occupation of the
demised lands from December 16, 1931. The Punjab Occupancy
Tenants' Vesting of Property Rights Act, 1952 came into force on June
15, 1951. The names of the tenants had not been recorded in the D
revenue records as occupancy tenants and they continued to pay the
rent upto 1974, the year in which they sold the lands to respondents
Nos. 1 to 5. The appellants- landlords claimed right to obtain
declaration as owners and for possession of the land. The High Court
refused to grant the relief. Hence this appeal.
E
Dismissing the appeal, this Court

HELD : 1.1. Respondent Nos. 5 to 15 who had become absolute
owners of the property as on June 15, 1951 when they sold the property
on June 19, 1974. Thereby, the appellants had no right to obtain
declaration as owners and for possession of the land as sought for. F
(145-B)

1.2. A perusal of Sections 2 and 3 of the Punjab Occupancy
Tenants' Vesting of Property Rights Act, 1952 clearly indicates that
occupancy tenant immediately before the commencement of the Act i.e.
June 15, 1951, has been conferred with a right of ownership on the G
demised lands and the pre-existing right, title and interest held by the
owner has been extinguished by operation of law. The landlord has
become entitled to receive and be paid such compensation as may be
determined under the Act. The occupancy tenant is enjoined to pay
direct to the Government only the land revenue accruing due in respect
of the land. Thereby the pre-existing jural relationship of landlord and H
141
142 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994) SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A tenant has been put to an end to by operation of law and the new
relationship as an owner between him and the State has been created
by operation of law. When the pre-existing right, title and interest of
the landlord has been divested by operation of law, the contract under
which the tenants came into possession on December 16, 1931 and the
convenants contained thereunder no longer subsist and operate
B between the erstwhile landlord and the tenant after the appointed date,
namely, June 15, 1951. (144-E-F)

1.3. It is true that the names of the tenants had not been recorded
in the revenue records as occupancy tenants and the tenants contint ~d
to pay the rent upto 1974, the year in which they sold the lands to
c respondent Nos. 1 to 5. It would show the ignorance of the tenants and
their truthfulness to abide by the contract. In view of the admitted
tenancy and their continuation in possession from 1931, the accrued
right in their favour by operation of law does not get defeated ·merely
by omission to have their names recorded in their revenue records as
occupancy tenants. Equally, the payment of the rent by them does not
D have the effect of divesting the rights, they had acquired under the
statute. There is no estoppel against the statute. (144-G-H, 145-A)

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 7567 of
1994.
E From the Judgment and Order dated 7.4.86 of the Punjab and Haryana
High Court in R.S.A. No. 1292of1977.

Anant Vijay Palli, Atul Shanna, E.C. Agarwala and Ms. Rekha Palli,
for the Appellants.

F J.K. Sibal, Ms. S. Bagga, (NP) and Ms. Kamini Jaiswal for the
Respondents.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :

Leave granted.
G
This appeal arises from the judgment and order dated 7.4.1986 of the
High Court of Punjab and Haryana made in Regular Second Appeal No.
1292of1977.

Admittedly, respondent Nos. 5 to 15 were the tenants in occupation of
H the demised lands from December 16, 1931. The Punjab Occupancy
BAHADUR SINGH v. SHANGARA SINGH 143

Tenant's Vesting of Property Rights Act, 1952, (for short 'the Act') came A
into force on June 15, 1951. Section 2 of the Act defines "appointed day"
and "occupancy tenant", thus:

"(a) 'Appointed day' means -

(i) in relation to any tenant who, immediately before the B
commencement of this Act, is recorded as an occupancy
tenant of any land in the revenue records, the 15th day of
June, 1951;

(ii) In relation to any tenant who obtains a right of
occupancy in any land after the commencement of this Act, C
the date on which he obtains such right of occupancy."

"(f) 'Occupancy tenant' means a tenant who, immediately
before the commencement of this Act, is recorded as an
occupancy tenant in the revenue records and includes a D
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." E
Then, Section 3 of the Act reads :

"Vesting of proprietary rights in occupancy tenants and
extinguishment of corresponding rights of landlords -
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any F
law, custom or usage for the time being in force, on and
from the appointed day -

(a) All rights, title and interest (including the contingent
interest, if any, recognized by any law, custom or usage for G
the time being . in force and including the share in the
Shamilat with respect to the land concerned of the landlord
in the land held under him by an occupancy tenant, shall be
extinguished, and such rights, title and interest shall be
deemed to vest in the occupancy tenant free from all
encumbrances, if any, created by the landlord; H
144 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. •
A Provided that the occupancy tenant shall have the option not
to acquire the share in the Shamilat by giving a notice in
writing to the Collector within six months of the publication
of this Act or from the date of the obtaining occupancy
rights whichever is later.

B (b) The landlord shall cease to have any right to collect or
receive any rent or any share of the land revenue in respect
of such land and his liability to pay land revenue in respect
of the land shall also cease;

(c) The occupancy tenarit shall pay direct to the
c Government the land revenue accruing due in respect of the
land;

(d) The occupancy tenant shall be liable to pay, and the
landlord concerned shall be entitled to receive and be paid,
such compensation as may be determined under this Act."
D
A perusal of the said provisions would clearly indicate that occupancy
tenant immediately before the commencement of the Act has been
conferred with a right of ownership on the demised lands and the pre-
existing right, title and interest held by the owner has been extinguished by
operation of law. The landlord has become entitled to receive and be paid
E
such compensation as may be determined under the Act. The occupancy
tenant is enjoined to pay direct to the Govt. only the land revenue accruing
due in respect of the land. Thereby the pre-existing jural relationship of
landlord and tenant has been put an end to by operation of law and the new
I
relationship as an owner between him and the State has been created by
F operation of law. As stated earlier, when the pre-existing right, title and
interest of the landlord has been divested by operation of law, the contract
under which the tenants came into possession on December 16, 193 I and
the covenants contained thereunder no longer subsist and operate between
the erstwhile landlord and the tenant after the appointed date, namely, June
I 5, I 95'1. It is true that the names of the tenants had not been recorded in
G the revenue records as occupancy tenant and the tenants continued to pay
the rent upto 1974 the year in which they sold the lands to respondent Nos.
I to 5. It would show the ignorance of the tenants and their truthfulness to
abide by the contract. In view of the admitted tenancy and their
continuation in possession from I 93 I, the accrued right in their favour by
H operation of law does not get defeated merely by omission to have their
....__
'
I
BAHADUR SINGH v. SHANGARA SINGH 145

names recorded in the revenue records as occupancy tenants. Equally, the A
payment of the rent by them does not have the effect of divesting the right,
they had acquired under the statute. There is no estoppel against the statute.

The result is that respondent Nos. 5 to 15 who had become absolute
owners of the property as on June 15, 1951 when they had sold the property
to the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 in June 19, 1974. Thereby, the appellants had B
no right to obtain declaration as owners and recur for possession of the land
as sought for. The High Court has rightly refused to grant the relief though
for different reasons.

The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
c
A.G . Appeal dismissed.

.....