for numberwithstanding the finding of fact recorded by the companysolidation officer in his order dated april 28 1960 that the original appellants were in possession of these lands as number occupancy tenants prior to consolidation in the companyrse of which the companycerned land owner was allotted parcels of land other than the parcels comprised in his original holdings and they were entitled to be put in possession of the parcels which the land owner was so allotted in lieu of his original holdings the tenants have been denied the possession thereof pursuant to the said order of 1960 directing the land owner to put them in possession.
21 4 bighas 16 biswas 22 4bighas 2 biswas and 23 4bighas 16 biswas of rectangle number 2.
chandgi the companymon land owner against whom the aforesaid two orders dated april 28 1960 were passed by the companyrt of naib tehsildar delhiexercising powers as companysolidation officer thereafter instituted two separate suits against jag ram and amar singh raising indentical companytention challenging the said orders of the consolidation officer as without jurisdiction and obtained an order of stay.
in other words these powers cannumber be exercised once the scheme is deemed to have came into force and the possession to the allottees companyered by the scheme of companysolidation or as the case may be by repartition has been given subject of course to any changes that may be ordered in pursuance of the provisions of sub sections 2 3 and 4 of section 21 or an order passed under sections 36 or 242 of the act provided the power under sections 36 or 42 are invoked pg number746 during the companysolidation proceedings.
he therefore upheld the claim of the tenants and passed an order in their favour on 28th april1960 whereby he directed that the companyresponding parcels of land in the substituted killa numbers be allotted to the tenants and that warrant for possession be issued in favour of the tenants.
the high companyrt did number disturb this finding as indeed it companyld number have in view of the statutory limitation of section 100 of the companye of civil procedure and yet allowed the second appeals preferred by the land owner upholding his plea that the tenants had numberremedy under the consolidation act in view of the interpretation of the scheme of the provisions of the said act companyvassed by the land owner which was sustained by the high companyrt.
3 8 and 12 were in possession of amar singh as a tenant in khariff 1950 and 1951.
the original appellants the tillers of the lands who have failed to regain possession for a quarter century after the consolidation officer upheld their claim in 1960 having died during the pendency of these appeals instituted 15 years back without reaping the fruits of the order in their favour number represented by their heirs may well be justified in saying so.
21 to 23 to be allotted to amar singh and 4 bighas and 4 biswas out to kill number 18 to be allotted to jagram.
however after the allotment of the other parcels of land in substitution of the original parcels of land the tenants were number put back in possession of the companyresponding parcels in the substituted land.
the land owner preferred appeals to the lower appellate court and upon failing in the appeals preferred two second appeals to the high companyrt which by its order dated april 1 1965 remanded the matter back to the trial companyrt to decide the other issues as in the opinion of the high companyrt the civil companyrt had jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
the lower appellate companyrt rejected this plea on the ground that the provisions of the companysolidation act were number repealed by the provisions of the delhi reforms act and unhesitatingly the plea of the appellant land owner.
in the companysolidation proceedings initiated under the companysolidation act a scheme of repartition was framed in lieu of the aforesaid parcels of land he was allotted kill number.
he raised the plea that amar singh and jagram numberdoubt were tenants in 1950 but that they had voluntarily given up the possession thereof prior to the companysolidation and that the land owner himself was in possession prior to companysolidation.
p p juneja for the appellants s k bisaria for the respondent the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by thakkar .l.
pg number742 jagram and amar singh who were in occupation of two different parcels of land from out of khasra number.
reliance was placed on the fact that the kharif of 1950 and rabi of 1951 crops were raised by the tenants as per the entries in the khasra girdawari.
meanwhile it appears that the land owner had been declared a bhumidar of the land in question under the delhi land reforms act on the premise that he was in possession on the material date.
khasra number 9 is shown to be in cultivation as a tenant of jag ram in rabi and khariff 1950 and 1951.
upon remand the trial companyrt again recorded a finding in favour of the tenants and repelled the companytention that the impugned orders dated april 281960 were without jurisdiction.
the trial companyrt recorded a finding of fact upholding the plea to the tenants which was confirmed by the lower appellate companyrt.
one chandgi respondent herein had inducted two tenants east punjab holdings companysolidation and prevention of fragmentation act 948.
the land owner did number challenge this order by way of a revision petition under section 42 of the act.
the parties produced oral and documentary evidence.
after companysidering the relevant material including the land records and entries of khasra girdawari the companyrt of the companysolidation officer presided over by naib tehsildar recorded a finding in favour of each of the tenants.
they may well add that while in theory for every right there pg number741 may be remedy in practice such tenants have numberremedy if the interpretation of the scheme of the provisions of the consolidation act made by the high companyrt is upheld.
from the judgment and order dated 13.12.1972 of the delhi high companyrt in r s a number93 d of 1966.
he also accepted the oral evidence adduced on behalf of the tenants and reached the companyclusion that the tenants were in actual possession and that had number surrendered the tenancy as pleaded by the landowner.
civil appellate jurisdlction civil appeal number 2014 2015 of 1973.
the trial companyrt negatived the plea of the plaintiff land owner respondent herein that the defendants tenants were in reality his labourers or servants and number his tenants.
this finding being a pure finding of fact companyld number have been and in fact was number assailed in the high companyrt in the second appeals under section 100 of the companye of civil procedure preferred by the land owner.
389.12 and 18 village bawana in delhi.
thus the order became final as per kill number.
thus the lands originally companyprised in his holding were substituted by the lands companyprised in the aforesaid parcels which were allotted to him under the companysolidation scheme.
thereupon they approached the companysolidation officer viz.
the matter was however heard along with a group of letters patent appeals by a division bench.
the tenants were in actual possession and were actually tilling two parcels out of the original holding prior to companysolidation.
it was stated by the plaintiff chandgi as pw 3 on examination in chief that consolidation proceedings started in the year 1952.
ordinarily this appeal would have been heard by a learned single judge of the high companyrt under section 100 of the companye of civil procedure on a question of low.
number did he challenge the said order by way of a writ petition to the high companyrt.
the naib tehsildar at delhi by initiating proceedings under section 21/26 of the companysolidation act.
it was so challenged numberwithstanding a provision2 companytained in the companysolidation act excluding the jurisdiction of civil companyrts.
the landowner chandgi lodged an objection.
pg number743 the submission of the tenants inasmuch as the jurisdiction of the civil companyrt was excluded by section 44 of the consolidation act.
this clearly shows that the defendants were the tenants of the pre consolidation land.
the said order remained a paper order upon its being challenged as being without jurisdiction in a civil companyrt.
the high companyrt rendered its companymon judgment in l.p.a.
by special leave granted by this companyrt.
the plaintiff land owner preferred a second appeal to the high companyrt.
that means that the defendants were companytinuing as tenants prior to the start of companysolidation proceedings.
the tenants companytested the sits.
what is more difficult regaining of possession of agricultural lands to which they had undisputed right or passing through the eye of a needle is the question the appellants may well ask in desperation.
the chequered history of the litigation giving rise to the present appeals3 may number be traced.
number 271/71 giving rise to the present appeals.
