{"id":157418,"date":"1996-10-10T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1996-10-09T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/inder-singh-anr-vs-the-financial-commissioner-on-10-october-1996"},"modified":"2017-11-20T14:34:16","modified_gmt":"2017-11-20T09:04:16","slug":"inder-singh-anr-vs-the-financial-commissioner-on-10-october-1996","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/inder-singh-anr-vs-the-financial-commissioner-on-10-october-1996","title":{"rendered":"Inder Singh & Anr vs The Financial Commissioner, … on 10 October, 1996"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Inder Singh & Anr vs The Financial Commissioner, … on 10 October, 1996<\/div>\n
Bench: K. Ramaswamy, G.B. Pattanaik<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nINDER SINGH & ANR.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nTHE FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER, PUNJAB & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t10\/10\/1996\n\nBENCH:\nK. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK\n\n\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
\t       THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 1996
\nPresent:\n<\/p>\n
\t      Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.Ramaswamy
\n\t      Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.B.Pattanaik
\n     Ujagar Singh,  Sr.Adv., Davender  Verma, Girish Sharma,
\nNaresh Bakshi, Advs. with him for the appellants.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     A.B.Rohtagi, Sr.Adv.  and Uma  Datta, Adv. with him for
\nthe Respondents.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t O R D E R
\n     The following Order of the Court was delivered:
\n     This appeal  by special  leave arises from the judgment
\nof the\tPunjab and  Haryana High  Court dated  March 5, 1980
\nmade in Civil Writ Petition No.1592 of 1967.\n<\/p>\n
     The admitted facts are that the appellants\/tenants were
\nin possession  of the  land bearing  specified Khasra number
\nmentioned in  the appellate  order [the details of which are
\nnot in dispute], admeasuring 190 kanals, 6 marlas in Village
\nKotrani in  Kapurthala District\t of Punjab.  His application
\nmade under  Section 22\tof the\tPepsu  Tenancy\tAgricultural
\nLands Act, 1955 [for short, the `Act’] was rejected by order
\ndated April  25, 1960  on the  ground that they did not have
\npossession for\t12 years  which was  confirmed\tby  all\t the
\nauthorities including the High Court in the Writ Petition on
\nSeptember  7,\t1964.\tSubsequently,\tthey   made   second
\napplication on\tMarch 26,  1965 for  conferment of ownership
\nrights based on tenancy from the respondents. Similarly, the
\nlandlord filed\tan application\tfor reservation\t of the land
\nfor personal cultivation. The authorities have dismissed the
\napplication of\tthe landlord  for reservation of the land by
\nall others and the High Court which order became final,. The
\napplication of\tthe appellants\twas allowed  on December 15,
\n1965. On  appeal, it  was confirmed  on June  22,  1966.  In
\nrevision, the Financial Commissioner by order dated June 15,
\n1967 confirmed\tthe same.  In  the  writ  petition,  by\t the
\nimpugned judgment  the Division Bench set aside the order of
\nthe authorities on the sole ground that the orders passed on
\nthe  earlier   occasion\t culminated  as\t res  judicata\tand,
\ntherefore the  second application  under Section  22 is\t not
\nmaintainable.\n<\/p>\n
     Shri Ujagar  Singh,  learned  senior  counsel  for\t the
\nappellants contended  that the\tview taken by the High Court
\nis not\tcorrect in  law. Since\tthe proceedings\t before\t the
\nauthorities is\tof  summary  nature,  the  doctrine  of\t res
\njudicata has  no application. The act does not prescribe any
\nprinciple of  res judicata  as such.  The proceedings before
\nthe authorities\t are of\t summary nature.  It  would  not  be
\ncorrect to  apply the  principle of  res judicata.  We\tfind
\nforce in the contention. It is not in dispute that the order
\npassed by  the authorities  is without\tany elaborate  trial
\nlike in\t a suit\t but in a summary manner. It is well settled
\nlaw that  the doctrine\tof res judicata envisaged in Section
\n11 of  C.P.C. has  no  application  to\tsummary\t proceedings
\nunless the  statute expressly  applies to  such orders.\t The
\nauthorities are\t not civil  court nor the petition a plaint.
\nNo issues  are framed nor tried as a civil suit. Under these
\ncircumstances, the  Division Bench  of the  High  Court\t was
\nclearly in  error to  conclude that  the earlier proceedings
\noperate as res judicata.\n<\/p>\n
     It is  then contended  by Shri  Sehgal, learned  Senior
\ncounsel for  the  respondents  that  unless  the  appellants
\nsatisfy the  requirements of Section 7A(2) read with Section
\n22, they are not entitled to claim proprietary rights to the
\nland or\t the interest held from the landlord. Therefore, the
\napplication is\tnot maintainable. Though this contention was
\nnot raised  before any\tof the\tfora, since it trenches upon
\njurisdiction, we  permitted the learned counsel to argue the
\ncase on this aspect of the matter. In this behalf, he sought
\nto place reliance on the Division Bench judgment of the High
\nCourt in  Jaisi\t Ram  v.  Financial  Commissioner,  Revenue,
\nPunjab & Ors, [AIR 1972 Punjab and Haryana 72]. The question
\nis: whether  the appellants  are entitled  to avail  of\t the
\nbenefit of  Section 22,\t or ordered by the authorities under
\nthe Act?  Section 2  (k) defines  “tenant” to  mean a tenant
\ndefined in  the Punjab\tTenancy Act,  1887. The exclusionary
\nclause is  not relevant\t for the purpose of this case; hence
\nomitted.  The  “President’s  Act”  has\tbeen  defined  under
\nSection 2(1)  to mean Patiala Punjab State Union Tenancy and
\nAgricultural Lands  Act, 1953,\tPresident  Act\t8  of  1953,
\nSection 7A  deals with\tthe right  to additional grounds for
\ntermination  of\t tenancy  in  certain  cases  which  are  in
\naddition to grounds specified in Section 7. It is brought by
\nway of Amendment Act 15 of 1956 which envisages as under:\n<\/p>\n
     “7A.   Additional\t  grounds    for
\n     termination of  tenancy in\t certain
\n     cases.  –\t (1)  Subject\tto   the
\n     provisions of  sub-sections (2) and
\n     (3), a  tenancy subsisting\t at  the
\n     commencement of  the Pepsu\t Tenancy
\n     and  Agricultural\t Lands\t (Second
\n     Amendment)\t  Act,\t 1956\tmay   be
\n     terminated on the following grounds
\n     in\t additional   to   the\t grounds
\n     specified in section 7, namely:-\n<\/p>\n
     (a) that  the land\t comprising  the
\n     tenancy has  been reserved\t by  the
\n     landowner\t  for\t his\tpersonal
\n     cultivation in  accordance with the
\n     provisions of Chapter II;\n<\/p>\n
     (b) That  the landowner owns thirty
\n     standard acres  or less of land and
\n     the   land\t   falls   within    his
\n     permissible limit:\n<\/p>\n
     Provided that no tenant (other than
\n     a tenant  of  a  landowner\t who  is
\n     member of\tthe Armed  forces of the
\n     Union) shall  be ejected under this
\n     sub-section.\n<\/p>\n
     (i) from  any area\t of land  if the
\n     area under the personal cultivation
\n     of the  tenant does not exceed five
\n     standard acres, or\n<\/p>\n
     (ii) from\tan area of five standard
\n     acres,  if\t  the  area   under  the
\n     personal cultivation  of the tenant
\n     exceeds five  standard acres, until
\n     he\t is   allotted\tby   the   State
\n     Government\t alternative   land   of
\n     equivalent value in standard acres.\n<\/p>\n
     (2)  No   tenant,\twho  immediately
\n     preceding the  commencement of  the
\n     President’s Act  has held\tany land
\n     continuously for a period of twelve
\n     years  or\t more  under   the  same
\n     landowner\tor  his\t predecessor  in
\n     title,  shall  be\tejected\t on  the
\n     grounds  specified\t in  sub-section
\n     (1) –\n<\/p>\n
     (a) from  any area\t of land, if the
\n     area under the personal cultivation
\n     of\t the   tenant  does  not  exceed
\n     fifteen standard acres, or\n<\/p>\n
     (b)  from\t an  area   of\t fifteen
\n     standard acres,  if the  area under
\n     the  personal  cultivation\t of  the
\n     tenant  exceeds   fifteen\tstandard
\n     acres:\n<\/p>\n
     Provided that  nothing in this sub-\n<\/p>\n
     section shall  apply to  the tenant
\n     of a  landowner who,  both, at  the
\n     commencement of the tenancy and the
\n     commencement  of\tthe  President’s
\n     Act,  was\ta  widow,  a  minor,  an
\n     unmarried woman,  a member\t of  the
\n     Armed Forces  of  the  Union  or  a
\n     person  incapable\t of  cultivating
\n     land  by\treason\tof  physical  or
\n     mental infirmity,
\n     Explanation  –   In  computing  the
\n     period of\ttwelve years, the period
\n     during which any land has been held
\n     under   same   landowner\tor   his
\n     predecessor in title by the father,
\n     brother or\t son of the tenant shall
\n     be included.\n<\/p>\n
     (3) For  the purpose  of  computing
\n     under sub-sections\t (1) and (2) the
\n     area of  land  under  the\tpersonal
\n     cultivation of  a tenant,\tany area
\n     of land  owned by\tthe  tenant  and
\n     under  his\t  personal   cultivation
\n     shall be included.”\n<\/p>\n
     Section 20\t was brought by the same
\n     Amendment Act; it reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
     “20. Definition  of  tenant.  –  In
\n     this   Chapter,\tthe   expression
\n     “tenant” means  a tenant as defined
\n     in clause\t(k) of section 2, who is
\n     not liable to be ejected –\n<\/p>\n
     (a) under\tclause (a)  and\t (b)  of
\n     sub-section (1) of Section 7-A; or\n<\/p>\n
     (b) under\tclauses (a)  and (b)  of
\n     sub-section (2) of Section 7-A:\n<\/p>\n
     Provided that this definition shall
\n     not apply\tto a tenant who is to be
\n     allotted by  the  State  Government
\n     land  under  the  proviso\tto  sub-\n<\/p>\n
     section (1) of Section 7-A.”\n<\/p>\n
     Section 20 defines “tenant”. For the purpose of Chapter
\nIV, the\t expression “tenant”  means a  tenant as  defined in
\nClause (k) of Section 2. In other words, he must be a tenant
\ndefined under the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887. The exclusionary
\nclause contained  in Section  2(k) has no application to the
\nfacts in  this case.  Such a  tenant is\t not  liable  to  be
\nejected (a)  either under clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section
\n(1) of\tSection 7-A or (b) under clauses (a) and (b) of sub-
\nsection (2)  of Section\t 7-A. Section 20 again excludes from
\nthe definition\tof tenant,  for the purpose of Section 20, a
\ntenant who  is to  be allotted\tby the State Government land
\nunder the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 7-A.\n<\/p>\n
     Such a  tenant, by\t operation of  Section\t22  acquires
\nright to  purchase preparatory\trights of the landlord, Sub-
\nsection (1)  thereof postulates\t that subject  to the  other
\nprovisions contained  in the  Act, a  tenant  defined  under
\nSection 20, shall be entitled to acquire from his landowner,
\nthe proprietary rights in respect of the land held by him as
\na tenant  in  the  manner  and\tsubject\t to  the  conditions
\nhereinafter provided.  The manner  and the  conditions\thave
\nbeen enumerated\t in sub-section\t (2) thereof.  Such a tenant
\nshall make  an application  in\twriting\t to  the  prescribed
\nauthority  in\tthe   prescribed   manner   containing\t the
\nparticulars mentioned  in clauses  (a) to (c) of sub-section
\n(2) of Section 22. Under clause (a), the tenant must specify
\nthe area  and location\tof the\tland in respect of which the
\napplication was\t made; under  clause (b),  the name  of\t the
\nlandowner from\twhom proprietary  rights are to be acquired;
\nunder  clause\t(c),  he   is  required\t  to  specify  other
\nparticulars prescribed\tin the\trules, Sub-section (3) deals
\nwith and  confers similar  right to  a\tsub-tenant  to\twhom
\ntenant had  leased the land. By operation of sub-section (3)
\nin respect  of the  land held by the subtenant, the right of
\nthe tenant  to acquire\tproprietary rights  stood  extended.
\nSub-tenant also\t became entitled to purchase the proprietary
\nright of  the landowner\t as if\the is  a  tenant  under\t the
\nlandlord. This\tis the\tnecessary corrollary  of sub-section
\n(3) of Section 22.\n<\/p>\n
     Since Section  20 and Section 22 envisage that a tenant
\nis not\tliable\tto  ejectment  and  the\t right\tto  purchase
\nproprietary rights  of a  land holder  by such\ta tenant  is
\nsubject to  the other  provisions of the Act, as a necessary
\ncorollary, we  have to\ttook as\t to what  are the  disabling
\nprovisions to  which a\ttenant would  be subjected to before
\nacquiring proprietary  rights, i.e. right, title or interest
\nin the\tland of the landowner from whom he holds the land as
\na tenant. The material provisions in that behalf are Section
\n7 and  Section 7A.  Section 7 speaks of the grounds on which
\nthe landlord  is entitled  to terminate\t the  tenancy  of  a
\ntenant. Sub-section  (1) thereof,  with\t negative  language,
\nemphasise that\tno tenancy  should be  terminated except  in
\naccordance with\t the provisions\t of the Act or except on any
\nof the grounds specified therein.\n<\/p>\n
     Clause (a)\t of sub-section (1) was omitted by Act 15 of
\n1956. Therefore,  it is\t not necessary to refer to the same.
\nClauses (b)  to (f)  deal with\tthe  grounds  on  which\t the
\ntenancy of  a tenant  may be terminated by the landlord with
\nwhich we  are not concerned and hence it is not necessary to
\nelaborate the  same in this judgment. Section 7A is relevant
\nfor the\t purpose of  this case\tand it is already reproduced
\nabove. It  provides additional\tgrounds for  termination  of
\ntenancy in  certain cases.  The operation of sub-section (1)
\nof Section  7A is  subject to  the operation of sub-sections
\n(2) and\t (3). By  operation of\tsub-section (1), the tenancy
\nmust be\t subsisting at the commencement of the Pepsu Tenancy
\nand Agricultural  Land (Second\tAmendment) Act, 1956. Such a
\nsubsisting  tenancy   may  be\tterminated  on\tthe  grounds
\nmentioned in clauses (a) & (b) of sub-section (1) of Section
\n7A. Those  are the grounds for determination of the tenancy,
\nin addition  to the  grounds specified\tin Section 7. Clause\n<\/p>\n
(a) of sub-section (1) of Section 7A provides the ground for
\ntermination of the tenancy, namely, that the land comprising
\nthe tenancy,  if has  been reserved  by the landlord for his
\npersonal cultivation,  in  accordance  with  the  provisions
\ncontained in  Chapter II, the tenant is liable to be ejected
\non this\t ground. Therefore, it is a condition precedent that
\nthe landlord,  in accordance  with Chapter  II of  the\tAct,
\nshould reserve the land held by the tenant, for his personal
\ncultivation. It\t is seen  that the  respondent-landlord\t had
\nalready attempted  though unsuccessfully,  to have  the land
\nheld by\t the appellants\t as tenants  reserved for landlord’s
\npersonal cultivation  but his  application was\trejected and
\nbecame final  and conclusive  between the  appellant and the
\nrespondent-landlord. Therefore,\t clause (a)  of\t sub-section
\n(1) of\tSection 7A  stood excluded as against the appellant.
\nThereby, they  are not liable to ejectment by termination of
\ntenancy held  by the  appellants by  the respondent-landlord
\nunder Section  7A(1)(a).  The  disabling  provision  thereby
\nstands excluded,  In other  words, the\tappellants  acquired
\nright to  purchase the proprietary rights of the respondent-
\nlandlord in  respect of\t the lands held by the appellants as
\ntenants,
\n     Clause (b)\t of sub-section (1) of Section 7a is another
\nground on  which  the  landlord\t may  be  entitled  to\tseek
\nejectment of  the tenant  by terminating  the tenancy  under
\nsection 7A.  It envisages  that\t if  the  landlord  owns  30
\nstandard acres or less of land and the land falls within his
\npermissible limits,  the landlord  is entitled to the extent
\nof or  to make\tup the\tpermissible limits, to terminate the
\ntenancy of  the tenant as an additional ground under section
\n7A(1)(b). In this case, the finding recorded by the tribunal
\nand not disputed in the High Court or before us was that the
\nrespondent was in excess of 30 standard acres of land, i.e.,
\n68 standard  acres and\tthat, therefore,  the appellants are
\nnot liable  to ejectment  from the  lands held\tby  them  as
\ntenants under  clause (b)  of sub-section (1) of Section 7A.
\nThe  proviso   to  sub-section\t (1)  of  Section  7A  gives
\nprotection to  a tenant\t even if  clauses (a)  and (b) stand
\nattracted, namely,  “provided that  no tenant  other than  a
\ntenant by a landowner who is a member of the armed forces of
\nthe Union  etc, shall  be ejected under sub-section (1) from
\nany area  of  the  land\t if  the  area\tunder  the  personal
\ncultivation of\tthe tenant does not exceed 5 standard acres.
\nIn other  words, even  if the landlord has reserved the land
\nfor personal  cultivation in  accordance with the provisions
\nof Chapter II and even if he holds 30 standard acres or less
\nand  the   land\t falls\t within\t the   permissible   limits,
\nnonetheless the\t tenant shall  not  be\tejected\t under\tsub-
\nsection (1)  provided (i)  that the  tenant  has  under\t his
\npersonal cultivation  the land\tnot exceeds 5 standard acres
\nor (ii) if the area under personal cultivation of the tenant
\nexceeding 5 standard acres until he is allotted by the State
\nGovernment alternative\tland of equivalent value in standard
\nacres. In  other words,\t even if  he is\t in possession of an
\narea of\t 5 standard  acres and\tif the landlord fulfills the
\nconditions enumerated  in clauses  (a) and (b) and is sought
\nto be ejected on those grounds, still the tenant is entitled
\nto resist  termination of tenancy of his 5 standard acres of
\nland until  the State  Government allots to him and puts him
\nin possession of the alternative land of equivalent value in
\nstandard acres. Thus, allotment of and putting in possession
\nof the\talternative land  of equivalent\t value\tin  standard
\nacres which  is sought\tto be  taken possession\t of  by\t the
\nlandlord from  the tenant  for ejectment  on the  additional
\ngrounds mentioned  in sub-section  (1) of  Section 7A  is  a
\ncondition precedent before eviction of a tenant.\n<\/p>\n
     Similarly, no tenant by operation of sub-section (2) of
\nSection 7A  shall  be  ejected\ton  additional\tgrounds\t who
\nimmediately preceding  the commencement\t of the\t President’s
\nAct had\t held any land continuously for a period of 12 years
\nor more under the same landlord or its predecessor in title.
\nhe shall  not be  ejected on  the grounds  specified in sub-
\nsection (1)  from any  area of\tland if\t the area  under the
\npersonal cultivation  of  the  tenant  does  not  exceed  15
\nstandard acres.\n<\/p>\n
     In other  words, the  tenant in  possession of the land
\nimmediately preceding  the commencement\t of the\t President’s
\nAct remained  in possession  of a period of 12 years or more
\nunder the same landowner or his predecessor in title or both
\nput together;  if he  is in  possession of  an area  of land
\nunder his  personal cultivation\t to  exceeding\t15  standard
\nacres, he  shall not  be ejected  on the  additional grounds
\nmentioned  in  Section\t7A.  It\t is  not  the  case  of\t the
\nrespondents that  the appellants  were in  possession of any
\narea of\t land under  their personal cultivation exceeding 15
\nstandard acres.\t Therefore, clause (a) of sub-section (2) of
\nSection 7A  does not apply to the facts of this case. Clause\n<\/p>\n
(b) equally  does not  apply since it is not the case of the
\nrespondents that  the appellants are in personal cultivation
\nof the\tland exceeding\t15 standard  acres belonging  to the
\nrespondent-landlord. Under the provision to sub-section (2),
\nit further  envisages that nothing in this sub-section shall
\napply  to  the\ttenant\tof  a  landlord\t who  both,  at\t the
\ncommencement of\t the  tenancy  and  the\t commencing  of\t the
\nPresident’s Act\t was a widow, a minor, an unmarried woman, a
\nmember of  the\tarmed  forces  of  the\tUnion  or  a  person
\nincapable of  cultivating the  land by region….., physical
\nor mental infirmity. The proviso gives benefit to a disabled
\ntenant with  which we are not concerned on the facts in this
\ncase. The  explanation to  sub-section (ii) provides that in
\ncomputing the  period of  12 years,  the period during which
\nany land  has been  held under\tthe same  landowner  or\t his
\npredecessor in\ttitle by  the father,  brother or  son of  a
\ntenant shall  be included.  This would\tfurther indicate the
\nbeneficial intendment  of conferment  of title to the tiller
\nof the\tland to\t tag on the 12 years’ period for the benefit
\nof acquiring proprietary interest of a landowner. The period
\nduring which the father, brother or son of a tenant had held
\nthe land  under the  same landowner  or predecessor in title
\nshould also  be included.  Sub-section (3) further envisages
\nthat for  the purpose of computing under sub-section (i) and\n<\/p>\n
(ii), the  area of  land under\tpersonal cultivation  of the
\ntenant, any  area of  land owned by the tenant and under his
\npersonal cultivation,  shall be included. In other words, it
\nwould indicate\tthat a tenant also shall not be in excess of
\nthe permissible standard acres. The land owned by the tenant
\nand land  personally cultivated\t by the\t tenant either under
\nthe same  landlord or  some  other  landlord  shall  all  be
\nincluded in  computing the  permissible limit  so  that\t the
\ntenant also  shall not be in excess of the permissible limit
\nso that\t the tenant  also shall\t not be\t in  excess  of\t the
\npermissible limit  while tagging  to his ownership the lands
\nheld under  tenancy with one or more than one land owners by
\nexercising the\tright to  purchase  the\t proprietary  rights
\nunder Section 22 of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
     The contention raised is that a tenant who had remained
\nin  continuous\t possession  of\t  12  years   prior  to\t the
\nPresident’s Act\t 8 of  1953 had\t come  into  force,  namely,
\nDecember 3,  1953, alone  is entitled to avail the remedy of
\nSection 22;  otherwise he  is liable  to  ejectment  by\t the
\nlandlord under sub-section (2) of Section 7A. Therefore, the
\nbenefit to purchase the proprietary right give under Section
\n22 is  not available  to the respondent. We find no force in
\nthe contention.\t The object  appears to\t be  that  a  tenant
\nimmediately preceding  the commencement of the President Act
\n8 of  1953 shall continue to remain for a period of 12 years
\neither under one landlord or his predecessor so as to tag on
\nthe continuous\t12 years’  period. It  does not appear to be
\nthat he\t should have remained in possession continuously for
\n12 years  preceding the\t commencement of  President Act 8 of
\n1953. What  is required\t to be\tsatisfied is that the tenant
\nmust be a “tenant” defined under Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 be
\nin possession of the land in his character as a tenant prior
\nto the President’s Act 8 of 1953 had come into force. Such a
\ntenant is  not liable to be ejected under clause (a) and (b)
\nof sub-section\t(1) of\tSection 7A.  He must have continuous
\npossession  for\t 12  years  either  under  one\tlandlord  or
\npredecessor in\ttitle or  intended in the land leased out to
\nthe tenant  to exercise the right under section 22. No doubt
\nit is  true that learned Judges of the Division Bench of the
\nHigh Court  had interpreted  the section  in the  manner  in
\nwhich the  learned counsel  has placed\tconstruction on sub-
\nsection\t (2)  of  section  7-A,\t i.e.,\t12  years  prior  to
\nPresident Act  8 of  1953 had  come into force. But with due
\nrespect, we  find that\tsuch interpretation would defeat the
\nvery object of conferment of proprietary right on the tenant
\nin occupation  of the  land which was in his possession. The
\nobject of  the Act  is to  confer proprietary  title on\t the
\ntenant in  occupation of  the agricultural  land so that the
\ntiller of  the soil  should get\t proprietary right  over the
\nland in\t his possession\t as tenant, despite the fact that he
\ncame into possession as a tenant at that the commencement of
\nAct 8  of 1953.\t Three conditions to be satisfied, as stated
\nalready are  – (1)  he must  be a  tenant defined  under the
\nPunjab Tenancy\tAct; (2) he was in possession of the land as
\non December  3, 1953;  and (3)\the was\ta tenant  under\t the
\nlandowner or  processor in title. He must have continuous 12
\nyears before  exercising the  right to\tpurchase proprietory
\nright. The interpretation put up by the learned Judges, with
\ndue respect, would defeat the object of the provision of the
\nAct. Thus  considered  we  hold\t that  the  appellants\thave
\nsatisfied the requirements mentioned in Section 22. They are
\nnot liable to ejectment either under sub-section (1) or sub-
\nsection (2) of Section 7A, as the case may be.\n<\/p>\n
     They were\tin possession  for 12 years. The are tenants
\nunder the  Punjab Tenancy Act. They were in possession prior
\nto December  3, 1953.  They, thereby,  acquired the right to
\npurchase the  proprietary interest  of the land held by them
\nas  a\ttenant.\t The   appellants  had\t satisfied  all\t the
\nrequirements.  We   are\t informed   that  the\tcompensation
\ndetermined by the authorities has already been deposited.\n<\/p>\n
     Under these  circumstances, we  allow the\tappeal,\t set
\naside the judgment of the High Court and restore that of the
\nauthorities  under   the  Act.\t The  writ  petition  stands
\ndismissed but, in the circumstances, there is no order as to
\ncosts.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Inder Singh & Anr vs The Financial Commissioner, … on 10 October, 1996 Bench: K. Ramaswamy, G.B. Pattanaik PETITIONER: INDER SINGH & ANR. Vs. RESPONDENT: THE FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER, PUNJAB & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 10\/10\/1996 BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT: THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 1996 Present: Hon’ble […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-157418","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nInder Singh & Anr vs The Financial Commissioner, ... on 10 October, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/inder-singh-anr-vs-the-financial-commissioner-on-10-october-1996\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Inder Singh & Anr vs The Financial Commissioner, ... on 10 October, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/inder-singh-anr-vs-the-financial-commissioner-on-10-october-1996\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1996-10-09T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-11-20T09:04:16+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/inder-singh-anr-vs-the-financial-commissioner-on-10-october-1996#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/inder-singh-anr-vs-the-financial-commissioner-on-10-october-1996\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Inder Singh & Anr vs The Financial Commissioner, … on 10 October, 1996\",\"datePublished\":\"1996-10-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-20T09:04:16+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/inder-singh-anr-vs-the-financial-commissioner-on-10-october-1996\"},\"wordCount\":3678,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/inder-singh-anr-vs-the-financial-commissioner-on-10-october-1996#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/inder-singh-anr-vs-the-financial-commissioner-on-10-october-1996\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/inder-singh-anr-vs-the-financial-commissioner-on-10-october-1996\",\"name\":\"Inder Singh & Anr vs The Financial Commissioner, ... on 10 October, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1996-10-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-20T09:04:16+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/inder-singh-anr-vs-the-financial-commissioner-on-10-october-1996#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/inder-singh-anr-vs-the-financial-commissioner-on-10-october-1996\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/inder-singh-anr-vs-the-financial-commissioner-on-10-october-1996#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Inder Singh & Anr vs The Financial Commissioner, … on 10 October, 1996\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Inder Singh & Anr vs The Financial Commissioner, ... on 10 October, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/inder-singh-anr-vs-the-financial-commissioner-on-10-october-1996","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Inder Singh & Anr vs The Financial Commissioner, ... on 10 October, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/inder-singh-anr-vs-the-financial-commissioner-on-10-october-1996","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1996-10-09T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-11-20T09:04:16+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/inder-singh-anr-vs-the-financial-commissioner-on-10-october-1996#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/inder-singh-anr-vs-the-financial-commissioner-on-10-october-1996"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Inder Singh & Anr vs The Financial Commissioner, … on 10 October, 1996","datePublished":"1996-10-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-20T09:04:16+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/inder-singh-anr-vs-the-financial-commissioner-on-10-october-1996"},"wordCount":3678,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/inder-singh-anr-vs-the-financial-commissioner-on-10-october-1996#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/inder-singh-anr-vs-the-financial-commissioner-on-10-october-1996","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/inder-singh-anr-vs-the-financial-commissioner-on-10-october-1996","name":"Inder Singh & Anr vs The Financial Commissioner, ... on 10 October, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1996-10-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-20T09:04:16+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/inder-singh-anr-vs-the-financial-commissioner-on-10-october-1996#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/inder-singh-anr-vs-the-financial-commissioner-on-10-october-1996"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/inder-singh-anr-vs-the-financial-commissioner-on-10-october-1996#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Inder Singh & Anr vs The Financial Commissioner, … on 10 October, 1996"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/157418","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=157418"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/157418\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=157418"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=157418"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=157418"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}