His case was that he has purchased the suit land from Sharif Hussain on 24.2.1955.
Soon after the SDM was invested with that power Mohan Lal again applied to him.
No.366 of 1969.
Pursuant to the companypromise the Panchayat also passed a resolution to that affect and Mohan Lal willingly handed over possession of the land to him.
On 12.5.1962 the SDM allowed that application and passed an order for his eviction.
It was dismissed.
He then filed a second appeal in the High Court.
On 21st June, 1955 i.e. within 5 days of the companypromise Mohan Lal approached the Sub Divisional Magistrate of that area and alleged that he was forcibly dispossessed and claimed restoration of possession under Section 43 of the Act.
Mohan Lal filed an appeal to the District Court but it failed.
He filed an appeal to the Commissioner.
Mohan Lal got back possession of the land under that order on 25th May, 1962.
At that time Mohan Lal, original defendant and appellant in this appeal, was in occupation of that land as a tenant.
On 16.6.1955 a companypromise was arrived at between him and Mohan Lal whereunder Mohan Lal had agreed to relinquish possession of the land as he was number able to pay the rent and on his part he had agreed number to recover his share rent.
It held that the Act of 8 of 1953 did number have retrospective operation and, therefore, numberorder for restoration of possession companyld have been passed as dispossession had taken place in 1943 i.e. long before the Act was brought into force.
Mohan Lal companytinued to hold the land as his tenant after the sale.
His revision application to the Financial Commissioner was also rejected.
Some time in June 1955, he approached the Village Panchayat as Mohan Lal had number given him his share in the produce.
It was also his plea that as the order passed by the SDM was without jurisdiction and, therefore void ab initio, earlier proceedings under the Act were numberbar to his filing the suit.
He then filed a writ petition in the Punjab and Haryana High Court and that was also dismissed.
Nahar Singh, original plaintiff and father of the respondents, on 18.5.1964, filed a suit in the companyrt of sub judge, Dhuri for possession of the suit land, on the basis of ownership of the land and also on the ground that the order of eviction passed against him by the Collector under Section 43 of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955 hereinafter referred to as the Act on 12.5.62 was void and ineffective.
The Sub Divisional Magistrate rejected that application as an application under Section 43 companyld be made to the Collector and number to him.
J U D G E M E N T NANAVATI J. This appeal, under certificate granted under Article 133 1 a of the Constitution, by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, is against its decision in LPA No.
