RSA-2502-1999 (O&M) [208] Punjab State through Revenue Collector, Punjab, Chandigarh and Kartar Singh and others Coram : Present: PANKAJ JAIN [1] [2] that he has bec the headnote of the plaint [3] inherited rights of tenancy from his forefathers kanals (hereinafter referred to as the suit property). [4] tenant. promulgated as Patiala and East Punjab States Union Abolition of Biswedari Ordinance, 2006 BK determined the rights of the occupancy tenants and the landlords, it was held that the occupancy ten entire holding share. Out of 120 kanals, possessed by the plaintiff and his brother as occupancy tenants, 32 kanals 02 marlas was given to the real owner i.e. St (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-2502 Date of Decision : Punjab State through Revenue Collector, Punjab, Chandigarh and others versus Kartar Singh and others HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Mr. Ishan Kaushal, AAG, Punjab Mr. H.S. Batth, Advocate for the respondents. *** PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL) Defendants-State of Punjab is in Regular Second Appeal. Plaintiff filed a suit seeking decree of declaration to the effect that he has become owner in possession of the suit property as detailed out in the headnote of the plaint Plaintiff claimed that he was a tenant in the suit property having inherited rights of tenancy from his forefathers kanals (hereinafter referred to as the suit property). Plaintiff along with his brother was in possession as occupancy State of Punjab and other East Punjab States vide Ordinance promulgated as Patiala and East Punjab States Union Abolition of Biswedari Ordinance, 2006 BK determined the rights of the occupancy tenants and the landlords, it was held that the occupancy ten entire holding held by them and the landlord shall own share. Out of 120 kanals, possessed by the plaintiff and his brother as occupancy tenants, 32 kanals 02 marlas was given to the real owner i.e. St IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 2502-1999 (O&M) Date of Decision : 08.04.2025 …Appellants ….Respondents PANKAJ JAIN Mr. Ishan Kaushal, AAG, Punjab for the respondents. State of Punjab is in Regular Second Appeal. Plaintiff filed a suit seeking decree of declaration to the effect me owner in possession of the suit property as detailed out in ed that he was a tenant in the suit property having inherited rights of tenancy from his forefathers qua land measuring 120 kanals (hereinafter referred to as the suit property). Plaintiff along with his brother was in possession as occupancy State of Punjab and other East Punjab States vide Ordinance promulgated as Patiala and East Punjab States Union Abolition of Biswedari Ordinance, 2006 BK determined the rights of the occupancy tenants and the landlords, it was held that the occupancy tenants are entitled to 3/4th of the by them and the landlord shall own the remaining 1/4 share. Out of 120 kanals, possessed by the plaintiff and his brother as occupancy tenants, 32 kanals 02 marlas was given to the real owner i.e. St 1 Plaintiff filed a suit seeking decree of declaration to the effect me owner in possession of the suit property as detailed out in ed that he was a tenant in the suit property having land measuring 120 Plaintiff along with his brother was in possession as occupancy State of Punjab and other East Punjab States vide Ordinance promulgated as Patiala and East Punjab States Union Abolition of Biswedari Ordinance, 2006 BK determined the rights of the occupancy tenants and the of the remaining 1/4th share. Out of 120 kanals, possessed by the plaintiff and his brother as occupancy tenants, 32 kanals 02 marlas was given to the real owner i.e. State RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.05.07 16:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2502-1999 (O&M) of Punjab and rest of the land Singh. However, the revenue record could not be of ownership, provincial Government was recorded as the owner. Plaintiff thus claimed his entitlemen brother being occupancy tenants and he having inherited tenancy rights from his brother on his death, is entitled to be declared as owner of the entire suit land. [5] [6] the tenancy rights and thus Section 18 of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955 further claimed that Agricultural Lands Act, 1955, the Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act, 1952 stands repealed. It was further claimed that neither under the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955 nor under any name of the plaintiff. [7] (O&M) of Punjab and rest of the land came under the ownership of plaintiff Ganda Singh. However, the revenue record could not be of ownership, provincial Government was recorded as the owner. Plaintiff thus claimed his entitlement as owner, claiming that he along with his brother being occupancy tenants and he having inherited tenancy rights from his brother on his death, is entitled to be declared as owner of the entire suit The suit was contested by the defendants. It was claimed that only lineal descendant or tenancy rights and thus, the plaintiff does not fall within the purview of Section 18 of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955 further claimed that by the dint of e Agricultural Lands Act, 1955, the Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act, 1952 stands repealed. It was further claimed that neither under the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955 nor under any other law, ownership vested in the State can be transferred in the name of the plaintiff. Suit was put to trial framing following issues: “1. Whether the plaintiff is the owner in possession of the land in dispute? OPD. 2. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi and cause of action to file the suit? OPD. 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present from? OPD. 4. Whether the plantiff has not served notice U/s 80 CPC? If so its effect ? OPD. 5. Whether the civil court has no juri OPD. came under the ownership of plaintiff Ganda Singh. However, the revenue record could not be corrected. In the column of ownership, provincial Government was recorded as the owner. Plaintiff t as owner, claiming that he along with his brother being occupancy tenants and he having inherited tenancy rights from his brother on his death, is entitled to be declared as owner of the entire suit The suit was contested by the defendants. lineal descendant or widow can enjoy the plaintiff does not fall within the purview of Section 18 of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955. It was by the dint of enactment of Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955, the Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act, 1952 stands repealed. It was further claimed that neither under the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955 nor other law, ownership vested in the State can be transferred in the following issues:- Whether the plaintiff is the owner in possession of the land in has no locus standi and cause of action Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present from? Whether the plantiff has not served notice U/s 80 CPC? If so Whether the civil court has no jurisdiction to try the suit? 2 came under the ownership of plaintiff Ganda corrected. In the column of ownership, provincial Government was recorded as the owner. Plaintiff t as owner, claiming that he along with his brother being occupancy tenants and he having inherited tenancy rights from his brother on his death, is entitled to be declared as owner of the entire suit can enjoy the plaintiff does not fall within the purview of It was nactment of Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955, the Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act, 1952 stands repealed. It was further claimed that neither under the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955 nor other law, ownership vested in the State can be transferred in the Whether the plaintiff is the owner in possession of the land in has no locus standi and cause of action Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present from? Whether the plantiff has not served notice U/s 80 CPC? If so try the suit? RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.05.07 16:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2502-1999 (O&M) [8] that petitioner Ganda Singh along with his brother Kaku Singh recorded as occupancy tenants prior to coming into force of terms of Section 2 (1) (a) of the 1954 Act, the plaintiff along with his brother-Kaku Singh are deemed to be occupancy tenants on the date. Thus, in terms plaintiff attain admitted tenancy and the continuation of the possession of the the year 1931, the plaintiffs are proved to be occupancy tenants whose tenancy rights graduated into ownership by operation of aforesaid findings, the Trial Court decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff. [9] of the first instance, defendants appeal before the the State. It was claimed that the land On his migration, it vested in custodian under the provisions of the Pepsu Evacuees ( provisions of the Ordinance, holder of the property is deemed to be holding it on behalf of the custodian. It was claimed that according (O&M) 6. Whether he suit is within limitation? OPP. 7. Whether the defendants are ent OPD. 1-A. Whether the plaintiffs had become owner suit land by operation of enactment ? OPP. 3-A. Whether provision of Sec 18 of the Lands Act which has been repealed is applicable to the present suit ? OPD. 8. Relief. ” Issue Nos.1 and 1-A were decided together. Trial Co that petitioner Ganda Singh along with his brother Kaku Singh recorded as occupancy tenants prior to coming into force of terms of Section 2 (1) (a) of the 1954 Act, the plaintiff along with his Kaku Singh are deemed to be occupancy tenants on the date. Thus, in terms of the provision as contained plaintiff attained ownership rights. Trial Court thus held that in view of admitted tenancy and the continuation of the possession of the the year 1931, the plaintiffs are proved to be occupancy tenants whose tenancy rights graduated into ownership by operation of aforesaid findings, the Trial Court decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff. Dissatisfied with the judgment and decree passed by the Court of the first instance, defendants-State preferred appeal appeal before the Lower Appellate Court the State. It was claimed that the land, in question On his migration, it vested in custodian under the provisions of the Pepsu Evacuees (Administration of Property) Ordinance provisions of the Ordinance, holder of the property is deemed to be holding it on behalf of the custodian. It was claimed that according Whether he suit is within limitation? OPP. Whether the defendants are entitled to special costs U/s 35 Whether the plaintiffs had become owner in possession of the peration of law since 1946 and 1952 due to Whether provision of Sec 18 of the Pepsu and Agricultural Lands Act which has been repealed is applicable to the A were decided together. Trial Court found that petitioner Ganda Singh along with his brother Kaku Singh have been recorded as occupancy tenants prior to coming into force of the 1954 Act. In terms of Section 2 (1) (a) of the 1954 Act, the plaintiff along with his Kaku Singh are deemed to be occupancy tenants on the appointed of the provision as contained under 1954 Act, the ip rights. Trial Court thus held that in view of admitted tenancy and the continuation of the possession of the plaintiff since the year 1931, the plaintiffs are proved to be occupancy tenants whose tenancy rights graduated into ownership by operation of law. With the aforesaid findings, the Trial Court decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff. Dissatisfied with the judgment and decree passed by the Court State preferred appeal. In the grounds of Lower Appellate Court, a new factual plea was taken by in question, was owned by a Muslim. On his migration, it vested in custodian under the provisions of the Pepsu Ordinance of 2006 BK. Under the provisions of the Ordinance, holder of the property is deemed to be holding it on behalf of the custodian. It was claimed that accordingly the ancestors 3 tled to special costs U/s 35-A? in possession of the since 1946 and 1952 due to epsu and Agricultural Lands Act which has been repealed is applicable to the urt found been 1954 Act. In terms of Section 2 (1) (a) of the 1954 Act, the plaintiff along with his appointed under 1954 Act, the ip rights. Trial Court thus held that in view of plaintiff since the year 1931, the plaintiffs are proved to be occupancy tenants whose law. With the Dissatisfied with the judgment and decree passed by the Court n the grounds of a new factual plea was taken by Muslim. On his migration, it vested in custodian under the provisions of the Pepsu of 2006 BK. Under the provisions of the Ordinance, holder of the property is deemed to be holding the ancestors RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.05.07 16:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2502-1999 (O&M) of the plaintiff w merely as having not been raised raised in the grounds of appeal before the [10] instance, Lower Appellate Court found possession of the proprietary rights in record, was entitled for declaration. The Lower Appellate Court dismissed the appeal [11] appellants ha production of the revenue record in form of and mutations. [12] 99 Bikrami (1941 of ownership. In the column of cultivation, Bhani son of Mutaba is recorded as marusi mutated in favour of Kaku Singh, Ganda Singh sons of Bhani. In the pedigree table, Bhani and Kaku Singh son of Bhan mutation w was claimed by the appellants that Ganda Singh Singh, etc executed Will dated 19.08.1992. In the said Will, he mentioned his parentage as Ganda Singh However, the property Mutaba. (O&M) of the plaintiff were not occupancy tenants merely as licensees. Lower Appellate Court found that the aforesaid plea having not been raised in the written statement in the grounds of appeal before the Affirming the findings recorded by the Cou instance, Lower Appellate Court found that possession of the proprietary rights in spite of was entitled for declaration. The Lower Appellate Court dismissed the appeal preferred by State of Punjab. In the second appeal before this Court, the defendants appellants have filed an application under Order production of the revenue record in form of and mutations. As per the applicants-appellant 99 Bikrami (1941-42 AD), Kasim Ali and others are recorded in the column of ownership. In the column of cultivation, Bhani son of Mutaba is recorded arusi. Vide Mutation No.301, inherit mutated in favour of Kaku Singh, Ganda Singh sons of Bhani. In the pedigree table, Bhani and Jai Singh, sons of Mutaba have been recorded. Kaku Singh son of Bhana died. Since he was unmarried and issueless, his mutation was sanctioned in favour of Ganda Singh son of Bhana Singh. It was claimed by the appellants that Ganda Singh etc executed Will dated 19.08.1992. In the said Will, he mentioned his parentage as Ganda Singh, son of Bhan However, the property vested in Ganda Singh not occupancy tenants, but holding land under custodian . Lower Appellate Court found that the aforesaid plea in the written statement cannot be allowed to be in the grounds of appeal before the Appellate Court. Affirming the findings recorded by the Court of the first that the plaintiff having continued in spite of adverse entry in the revenue was entitled for declaration. The Lower Appellate Court dismissed second appeal before this Court, the defendants filed an application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC seeking production of the revenue record in form of jamabandies, pedigree tables appellants, jamabandi for the year 1998 and others are recorded in the column of ownership. In the column of cultivation, Bhani son of Mutaba is recorded inheritance of Bhani son of Mutaba was mutated in favour of Kaku Singh, Ganda Singh sons of Bhani. In the sons of Mutaba have been recorded. died. Since he was unmarried and issueless, his as sanctioned in favour of Ganda Singh son of Bhana Singh. It was claimed by the appellants that Ganda Singh the ancestors of Ka etc executed Will dated 19.08.1992. In the said Will, he mentioned son of Bhana Singh, son of Deva Singh. Ganda Singh, son of Bhani Singh, son of 4 but holding land under custodian . Lower Appellate Court found that the aforesaid plea cannot be allowed to be rt of the first the plaintiff having continued in in the revenue was entitled for declaration. The Lower Appellate Court dismissed second appeal before this Court, the defendants- Rule 27 CPC seeking tables for the year 1998- and others are recorded in the column of ownership. In the column of cultivation, Bhani son of Mutaba is recorded ance of Bhani son of Mutaba was mutated in favour of Kaku Singh, Ganda Singh sons of Bhani. In the sons of Mutaba have been recorded. died. Since he was unmarried and issueless, his as sanctioned in favour of Ganda Singh son of Bhana Singh. It ancestors of Kartar etc executed Will dated 19.08.1992. In the said Will, he mentioned son of Deva Singh. son of RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.05.07 16:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2502-1999 (O&M) [13] allowed the application filed by State under Order decide following (O&M) After hearing the parties, this Court vide order dated 20.12.2018 allowed the application filed by State under Order following issue:- ‘Whether Mutaba and Deva Singh were one and the same persons and whether Bhani was also known as Bhana or not? The order reads as under:- “ State of Punjab is in the regular second appeal against the judgments passed by the courts Respondents-plaintiffs had filed a suit claiming declaration that they are owners in possession as tenancy in their favour occupancy tenancy has matured into ownership. During the pendency of the appeal, application for additional evidence has been filed so as to prove that Sucha Singh son of Jai Singh and Bhani son of Muttaba were in possession as per jamabandi for the year 1941-1942, which is equivalent to Bikrami 1998-1999. Whereas subsequently Bhani has been changed to Bhana and they have been shown as son of Deva Singh. A pedigree table Annexure A-2 based on jamabandi sought to be produced. No doubt, State of Punjab should have produced these documents before the court at the very first stage, however, keeping in view the fact that ownership of the property which is alleged to be public property as per the stand of the State of Punjab is involved, some extra leverage has to be granted to the State. The courts have been constituted to do substantive justice and rul enacted to advance justice and not to scuttle it. It may be noted that as per jamabandi for the year 1941 produced in additional evidence Muslim religion were recorded as owners, migrated to Pakistan and therefore, the property property and thus vested firstly in the Central Government thereafter in the State Government. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, it is considered appropriate to allow the application for additional evidence, After hearing the parties, this Court vide order dated 20.12.2018 allowed the application filed by State under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC hether Mutaba and Deva Singh were one and the same persons and whether Bhani was also known as Bhana or not? State of Punjab is in the regular second appeal against the judgments passed by the courts below. plaintiffs had filed a suit claiming declaration they are owners in possession as tenancy in their favour has matured into ownership. During the pendency of the appeal, application for additional n filed so as to prove that Sucha Singh son of Jai and Bhani son of Muttaba were in possession as per 1942, which is equivalent to Bikrami subsequently Bhani has been changed to Bhana as son of Deva Singh. A pedigree table 2 based on jamabandi for the year 1941-1942 is also No doubt, State of Punjab should have produced these documents before the court at the very first stage, however, keeping the fact that ownership of the property which is alleged to be property as per the stand of the State of Punjab is involved, leverage has to be granted to the State. The courts have do substantive justice and rules of procedure are and not to scuttle it. It may be noted that year 1941-1942, which is sought to be produced in additional evidence certain owners who belong to Muslim religion were recorded as owners, who had stated to have migrated to Pakistan and therefore, the property became evacuee property and thus vested firstly in the Central Government and thereafter in the State Government. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, it is considered allow the application for additional evidence, 5 After hearing the parties, this Court vide order dated 20.12.2018 Rule 27 CPC to hether Mutaba and Deva Singh were one and the same persons and whether Bhani was also known as Bhana or not? State of Punjab is in the regular second appeal against the plaintiffs had filed a suit claiming declaration they are owners in possession as tenancy in their favour During the pendency of the appeal, application for additional n filed so as to prove that Sucha Singh son of Jai and Bhani son of Muttaba were in possession as per 1942, which is equivalent to Bikrami subsequently Bhani has been changed to Bhana as son of Deva Singh. A pedigree table 1942 is also No doubt, State of Punjab should have produced these documents before the court at the very first stage, however, keeping the fact that ownership of the property which is alleged to be property as per the stand of the State of Punjab is involved, leverage has to be granted to the State. The courts have es of procedure are and not to scuttle it. It may be noted that 1942, which is sought to be certain owners who belong to who had stated to have became evacuee and Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, it is considered allow the application for additional evidence, RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.05.07 16:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2502-1999 (O&M) [14] Sunam. After recording the evidence, the concerned Court reported as under:- (O&M) permitting the State as well as to the respondents to lead evidence in question whether Muttaba and person or not and whether Bhani was this purpose, learned trial court is requested to granting opportunities to both the parties. Let a report be submitted within a period of 6 months. The original record of Civil Suit No.299, dated 19.03.1991 is already available with the trial court, which may be summoned from the record room. Parties through their counsels are directed to appeal before the learned trial court on 14.01.2019. Adjourned to 22.07.2019. To be listed in urgent.” The parties appeared before the Civil Judge (J Sunam. After recording the evidence, the concerned Court reported as “ In reference to subject cited above as per order dated 20.12.2018, trial court was directed to grant opportunities to the parties to lead additional evidence Deva Singh are same person or not and whether Bhani was known as Bhana or not. In this regard report was to be submitted within six months but thereafter as per order dated 05.07.2019, time to submit report was extended for further three months and matter was to be put on 16.10.2019. In this regard State of Punjab examined seven witness namely Tehsildar Surinder Singh as AW AW-2, Registry Clerk Ashwani Kumar as AW as AW-4, AOK Gulzar Singh as AW as AW-6 and Field Kanungo Gurnam Singh as AW respondent/plaintiff examined six witnesses namely Assistant Record Keepar Pooja as RW-1, Numberdar Rachpal Singh as RW Handwriting and Fingerprint Expert Dr. Inderjit Singh as RW Magar Singh as RW-4, Prem Singh as RW RW-6. as to the respondents to lead evidence in question whether Muttaba and Deva Singh was one and the same person or not and whether Bhani was known as Bhana or not? For learned trial court is requested to submit a report after granting opportunities to both the parties. Let a report be submitted within a period of 6 months. The original record of Civil Suit No.299, dated 19.03.1991 is already court, which may be summoned from the Parties through their counsels are directed to appeal before learned trial court on 14.01.2019. Adjourned to 22.07.2019. The parties appeared before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sunam. After recording the evidence, the concerned Court reported as In reference to subject cited above as per order dated 20.12.2018, trial court was directed to grant opportunities to the parties to lead additional evidence on question whether Muttaba and Deva Singh are same person or not and whether Bhani was known as Bhana or not. In this regard report was to be submitted within six months but thereafter as per order dated 05.07.2019, time to submit further three months and matter was to be In this regard State of Punjab examined seven witness namely Tehsildar Surinder Singh as AW-1, retired Patwari Girdari Lal as 2, Registry Clerk Ashwani Kumar as AW-3, ANSK Jagraj Singh 4, AOK Gulzar Singh as AW-5, Halqa Patwari Sukhdev Singh 6 and Field Kanungo Gurnam Singh as AW-7. On other hand respondent/plaintiff examined six witnesses namely Assistant Record 1, Numberdar Rachpal Singh as RW and Fingerprint Expert Dr. Inderjit Singh as RW 4, Prem Singh as RW-5 and Karnail Singh as 6 as to the respondents to lead evidence in Deva Singh was one and the same known as Bhana or not? For submit a report after Let a report be submitted within a period of 6 months. The original record of Civil Suit No.299, dated 19.03.1991 is already court, which may be summoned from the Parties through their counsels are directed to appeal before unior Division), Sunam. After recording the evidence, the concerned Court reported as In reference to subject cited above as per order dated 20.12.2018, trial court was directed to grant opportunities to the on question whether Muttaba and Deva Singh are same person or not and whether Bhani was known as Bhana or not. In this regard report was to be submitted within six months but thereafter as per order dated 05.07.2019, time to submit further three months and matter was to be In this regard State of Punjab examined seven witness namely 1, retired Patwari Girdari Lal as 3, ANSK Jagraj Singh 5, Halqa Patwari Sukhdev Singh 7. On other hand respondent/plaintiff examined six witnesses namely Assistant Record 1, Numberdar Rachpal Singh as RW-2, and Fingerprint Expert Dr. Inderjit Singh as RW-3, 5 and Karnail Singh as RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.05.07 16:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2502-1999 (O&M) (O&M) The onus was on the State of Punjab to prove that Muttaba and Deva Singh are different person and Bhani and Bhana Singh are different persons as they had pleaded the same. Surinder Singh, Tehsildar was examined as AW affidavit Ex.AWI/A that in jamabandi for the year 1941 Sucha Singh son of Jai Singh and Bhani son of Muttaba has been recorded in the column of cultivation. Thereafter, Bhani died and vide mutation no.301, his share was inherited by his sons namely Kaku Singh and Ganda Singh. Thereafter, in jamabandi for the year 1945-46 and for the year 1953 Singh were recorded as in cultivating possession. Thereafter, in the jamabandi for the year 1957-58. name of Kaku Singh and Ganda Singh was changed from Bhani to Bhana. After this consolidation took place and while preparing document khatauni istemal, name of Bhana was changed to Bhana Singh. Thereafter, land comprised in khatauni no.646/686 was allotted to the parties in lieu of land comprised in khatauni no.602 where name of Bhana Singh was written as Bhan Singh. Further after preparation of document Misal Haqiat, Bhan Singh was recorded as son of Deva Singh instead of son of Mattaba Singh in jamabandi for the year 1941 further stated that the property in question actually belongs to Ganda Singh son of Bhani son of Muttaba but the property is being claimed by Ganda Singh son of Bhana Singh son of Deva Singh. Thereafter, retired Patwari Girdhari Lal was examined as AW-2 who had translated the Urdu version of jamabandi for the year 1998-99 and Kursinama (Pedigree table) into Punjabi. He further deposed that as per record name of Bhani has been recorded as son of Muttaba. Thereafter, registry clerk Ashwani Kumar was examined as AW-3 who had brought the record regarding Will no.113 dated 19.08.1992 executed by Ganda Singh son of Bhan Singh. Thereafter, Gulzar Singh, Assistant Office Kanungo was examined as AW-5 who had brought copy of resolution of consolidation no.286. Thereafter, Halqa Patwari Sukhdev Singh was examined as AW-6 and Field Kanungo Gurnam Singh was examined as AW-7. The onus was on the State of Punjab to prove that Muttaba and Deva Singh are different person and Bhani and Bhana Singh are ersons as they had pleaded the same. Surinder Singh, Tehsildar was examined as AW-1 who had deposed by way of affidavit Ex.AWI/A that in jamabandi for the year 1941-42 name of Sucha Singh son of Jai Singh and Bhani son of Muttaba has been olumn of cultivation. Thereafter, Bhani died and vide mutation no.301, his share was inherited by his sons namely Kaku Singh and Ganda Singh. Thereafter, in jamabandi for the year 46 and for the year 1953-54 names of Kaku Singh and Ganda corded as in cultivating possession. Thereafter, in the 58. name of Kaku Singh and Ganda Singh was changed from Bhani to Bhana. After this consolidation took place and while preparing document khatauni istemal, name of changed to Bhana Singh. Thereafter, land comprised in khatauni no.646/686 was allotted to the parties in lieu of land comprised in khatauni no.602 where name of Bhana Singh was written as Bhan Singh. Further after preparation of document Misal n Singh was recorded as son of Deva Singh instead of son of Mattaba Singh in jamabandi for the year 1941-42. It was further stated that the property in question actually belongs to Ganda Singh son of Bhani son of Muttaba but the property is being y Ganda Singh son of Bhana Singh son of Deva Singh. Thereafter, retired Patwari Girdhari Lal was examined as 2 who had translated the Urdu version of jamabandi for the year 99 and Kursinama (Pedigree table) into Punjabi. He further s per record name of Bhani has been recorded as son Thereafter, registry clerk Ashwani Kumar was 3 who had brought the record regarding Will no.113 dated 19.08.1992 executed by Ganda Singh son of Bhan ingh, Assistant Office Kanungo was 5 who had brought copy of resolution of consolidation no.286. Thereafter, Halqa Patwari Sukhdev Singh was 6 and Field Kanungo Gurnam Singh was examined 7 The onus was on the State of Punjab to prove that Muttaba and Deva Singh are different person and Bhani and Bhana Singh are ersons as they had pleaded the same. Surinder Singh, 1 who had deposed by way of 42 name of Sucha Singh son of Jai Singh and Bhani son of Muttaba has been olumn of cultivation. Thereafter, Bhani died and vide mutation no.301, his share was inherited by his sons namely Kaku Singh and Ganda Singh. Thereafter, in jamabandi for the year 54 names of Kaku Singh and Ganda corded as in cultivating possession. Thereafter, in the 58. name of Kaku Singh and Ganda Singh was changed from Bhani to Bhana. After this consolidation took place and while preparing document khatauni istemal, name of changed to Bhana Singh. Thereafter, land comprised in khatauni no.646/686 was allotted to the parties in lieu of land comprised in khatauni no.602 where name of Bhana Singh was written as Bhan Singh. Further after preparation of document Misal n Singh was recorded as son of Deva Singh instead of 42. It was further stated that the property in question actually belongs to Ganda Singh son of Bhani son of Muttaba but the property is being Thereafter, retired Patwari Girdhari Lal was examined as 2 who had translated the Urdu version of jamabandi for the year 99 and Kursinama (Pedigree table) into Punjabi. He further s per record name of Bhani has been recorded as son Thereafter, registry clerk Ashwani Kumar was 3 who had brought the record regarding Will no.113 dated 19.08.1992 executed by Ganda Singh son of Bhan ingh, Assistant Office Kanungo was 5 who had brought copy of resolution of consolidation no.286. Thereafter, Halqa Patwari Sukhdev Singh was 6 and Field Kanungo Gurnam Singh was examined RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.05.07 16:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2502-1999 (O&M) [15] from the concerned Court being in favour of the plaintiff, the present deserves to be dismissed. [16] evidence could be adduced by the State to the effect that Deva Singh Mutaba are different persons or that Bhana was not known as Bhani. [17] through records of [18] question as per (O&M) On the other hand, Assistant Complex, Pooja was examined as RW original file of suit bearing no.839 dated 20.11.1992 and civil suit no.829 dated 18.11.1992. Thereafter, Numberdar Rachpal Singh was examined as RW-2, who had deposed was formal numberdar of village Daska who had attested the sale deed dated 22.01.1974, 06.06.1983 and 28.06.1979. He identified the signature of his father. Dr. Inderjit Singh, Handwriting and Fingerprint Expert was examined a signature of Kartar Singh numberdar and has deposed that the signature of Kartar Singh on the above stated sale deed are similar. Thereafter, Maghar Singh was examined as RW examined as RW-5 and Karnail After perusal of entire evidence, it has transpired that state has produced no evidence with regard to the fact that Mutaba and Deva Singh are different person and whether Bhani was known as Bhana. Although they have tendered revenue the other hand, RW-4 Maghar Singh and RW residents of village Daska have categorically stated in their evidence that father of Ganda Singh was Bhana who was also known as Bhan Singh and further that Bhan Singh w known as Deva Singh. ” Counsel for the respondents submits that the report received from the concerned Court being in favour of the plaintiff, the present deserves to be dismissed. State Government is not in a pos evidence could be adduced by the State to the effect that Deva Singh Mutaba are different persons or that Bhana was not known as Bhani. I have heard counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through records of the case. Even though a Muslim was recorded as owner of the land in question as per jamabandi for the year 1940 On the other hand, Assistant Record Keeper at Judicial Court Complex, Pooja was examined as RW-1 who had brought the original file of suit bearing no.839 dated 20.11.1992 and civil suit no.829 dated 18.11.1992. Thereafter, Numberdar Rachpal Singh was 2, who had deposed that his father Kartar Singh was formal numberdar of village Daska who had attested the sale deed dated 22.01.1974, 06.06.1983 and 28.06.1979. He identified the signature of his father. Dr. Inderjit Singh, Handwriting and Fingerprint Expert was examined as RW-3 who had compared the signature of Kartar Singh numberdar and has deposed that the signature of Kartar Singh on the above stated sale deed are similar. Thereafter, Maghar Singh was examined as RW-4, Prem Singh was ail Singh was examined as RW-6. After perusal of entire evidence, it has transpired that state has produced no evidence with regard to the fact that Mutaba and Deva Singh are different person and whether Bhani was known as Bhana. Although they have tendered revenue record in evidence. On 4 Maghar Singh and RW-5 Prem Singh who are residents of village Daska have categorically stated in their evidence that father of Ganda Singh was Bhana who was also known as Bhan Singh and further that Bhan Singh was son of Mutaba who was also Counsel for the respondents submits that the report received from the concerned Court being in favour of the plaintiff, the present State Government is not in a position to dispute the fact that no evidence could be adduced by the State to the effect that Deva Singh Mutaba are different persons or that Bhana was not known as Bhani. I have heard counsel for the parties and have carefully gone Muslim was recorded as owner of the land in for the year 1940-41, it is not in dispute that 8 Record Keeper at Judicial Court 1 who had brought the original file of suit bearing no.839 dated 20.11.1992 and civil suit no.829 dated 18.11.1992. Thereafter, Numberdar Rachpal Singh was that his father Kartar Singh was formal numberdar of village Daska who had attested the sale deed dated 22.01.1974, 06.06.1983 and 28.06.1979. He identified the signature of his father. Dr. Inderjit Singh, Handwriting and 3 who had compared the signature of Kartar Singh numberdar and has deposed that the signature of Kartar Singh on the above stated sale deed are similar. 4, Prem Singh was After perusal of entire evidence, it has transpired that state has produced no evidence with regard to the fact that Mutaba and Deva Singh are different person and whether Bhani was known as record in evidence. On 5 Prem Singh who are residents of village Daska have categorically stated in their evidence that father of Ganda Singh was Bhana who was also known as Bhan as son of Mutaba who was also Counsel for the respondents submits that the report received from the concerned Court being in favour of the plaintiff, the present ition to dispute the fact that no evidence could be adduced by the State to the effect that Deva Singh Mutaba I have heard counsel for the parties and have carefully gone Muslim was recorded as owner of the land in it is not in dispute that RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.05.07 16:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2502-1999 (O&M) plaintiff-Ganda Singh along with occupancy tenants in terms of Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887. The land is situated in the erstwhile State of Patiala. In the said State promulgated. The same provided for apportionment of land landlords and their occupancy tenants in the ratio of 1/3 case of occupancy rights under Section 5 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 and in the ratio of Sections 6 & 8 of the said Act. [19] Pepsu Abolition of Biswedari Ordinance, 2006 BK (2006 BK = 1950 AD). Section 2 [20] tenant and landlord in the holding. The same reads as under: (O&M) Ganda Singh along with his brother occupancy tenants in terms of Section 8 of Act No.60 of 1887 Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887. The land is situated in the erstwhile State of Patiala. In the said State, farmane shahi promulgated. The same provided for apportionment of land landlords and their occupancy tenants in the ratio of 1/3 case of occupancy rights under Section 5 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 in the ratio of 2/5th and 3/5th in the case of occupancy rights under 6 & 8 of the said Act. The farmane shahi No.6 was Abolition of Biswedari Ordinance, 2006 BK (2006 BK = 1950 AD). Section 2 (j) of the Ordinance defined ‘occupancy tenant “2(j) “occupancy tenant” means a tenant who before the notified date- (i) has a right of occupancy in pursuance of either Section 5 or section 6 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887, in force in the Union, or (ii) has established or establishes a right of occupancy in pursuance of either Section 7 or Section 8 of the said Act, in any land owned by a landlord; ” Section 9 provided for declaration of shares of the occupancy tenant and landlord in the holding. The same reads as under: “9. The Partition Commissioner shall determine and declare t respective shares of the landlord and the occupancy tenant in the holding which shall be- (a) in the case of occupancy tenant, three holdings and his brother Kaku Singh were recorded as Section 8 of Act No.60 of 1887, i.e. the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887. The land is situated in the erstwhile State of farmane shahi No.8 dated 11.03.1947 was promulgated. The same provided for apportionment of lands between the landlords and their occupancy tenants in the ratio of 1/3rd and 2/3rd in the case of occupancy rights under Section 5 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 in the case of occupancy rights under No.6 was amended and superseded by the Abolition of Biswedari Ordinance, 2006 BK (2006 BK = 1950 AD). occupancy tenant’ as under:- “occupancy tenant” means a tenant who immediately has a right of occupancy in pursuance of either Section 5 or section 6 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887, in force in the Union, or has established or establishes a right of occupancy in pursuance of either Section 7 or Section 8 of the said Act, in any land owned by a Section 9 provided for declaration of shares of the occupancy tenant and landlord in the holding. The same reads as under:- 9. The same reads as under:- 9. The Partition Commissioner shall determine and declare t respective shares of the landlord and the occupancy tenant in the (a) in the case of occupancy tenant, three-fourth of the entire 9 Kaku Singh were recorded as i.e. the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887. The land is situated in the erstwhile State of No.8 dated 11.03.1947 was between the in the case of occupancy rights under Section 5 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 in the case of occupancy rights under amended and superseded by the Abolition of Biswedari Ordinance, 2006 BK (2006 BK = 1950 AD). immediately has a right of occupancy in pursuance of either Section 5 or section 6 of the Punjab Tenancy has established or establishes a right of occupancy in pursuance of either Section 7 or Section 8 of the said Act, in any land owned by a Section 9 provided for declaration of shares of the occupancy 9. The Partition Commissioner shall determine and declare the respective shares of the landlord and the occupancy tenant in the fourth of the entire RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.05.07 16:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2502-1999 (O&M) [21] Tenants ( further superseded tenant” as under: (O&M) (b) in the case of the landlord, one holding: [Provided that- (a) where the occupancy tenant pays only cash rent; or (b) where the occupancy tenant pays rent in kind which is less than one-fourth of the produce of the holding; the respective shares of the landlord and the occupancy tenant shall be determined in accordance this behalf by the Government: Provided further that where in respect of any holding the occupancy tenant does not pay to the landlord anything over and above the land revenue and rates and cesses thereon, he shall be entitled to t entire holding.] ” The said Act was further superseded by Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act, further superseded by 1954 Act. Section 2 as under:- "2 (h) “Occupancy tenant", in respect of any land means a person who, at the commencement of the President's Act is or is deemed to be an occupancy tenant in respect of the land and includes a person who, after such commencement obtains a right of occupancy i by any agreement with the landlord or by any decree or order of any court or other authority of competent jurisdiction and includes also the predecessors and successors in interest of an occupancy tenant: Provided that no person who has abandoned his tenancy shall be deemed to be an occupancy tenant within the meaning of this clause. Explanation 1.- For the purposes of this clause, a person is or is deemed to be an occupancy tenant at the commencement of the President's Act- (b) in the case of the landlord, one-fourth of the entire where the occupancy tenant pays only cash rent; or where the occupancy tenant pays rent in kind which is fourth of the produce of the holding; the respective shares of the landlord and the occupancy tenant shall be determined in accordance with the rules made in this behalf by the Government: Provided further that where in respect of any holding the occupancy tenant does not pay to the landlord anything over and above the land revenue and rates and cesses thereon, he shall be entitled to t ct was further superseded by the Pepsu Occupancy ights) Act, 1953. The 1953 Act was Section 2 (h) thereof defines “occupancy ", in respect of any land means a person who, at the commencement of the President's Act is or is deemed to be an occupancy tenant in respect of the land and includes a person who, after such commencement obtains a right of occupancy in respect of the land, whether by any agreement with the landlord or by any decree or order of any court or other authority of competent jurisdiction and includes also the predecessors and successors in interest of an occupancy tenant:” o person who has abandoned his tenancy shall be deemed to be an occupancy tenant within the meaning of this For the purposes of this clause, a person is or is deemed to be an occupancy tenant at the commencement of the 10 fourth of the entire where the occupancy tenant pays rent in kind which is fourth of the produce of the holding; the respective shares of the landlord and the occupancy tenant with the rules made in Provided further that where in respect of any holding the occupancy tenant does not pay to the landlord anything over and above the land revenue and rates and cesses thereon, he shall be entitled to the Pepsu Occupancy . The 1953 Act was occupancy ", in respect of any land means a person who, at the commencement of the President's Act is or is deemed to be an occupancy tenant in respect of the land and includes a person who, after such commencement n respect of the land, whether by any agreement with the landlord or by any decree or order of any court or other authority of competent jurisdiction and includes also the predecessors and o person who has abandoned his tenancy shall be deemed to be an occupancy tenant within the meaning of this For the purposes of this clause, a person is or is deemed to be an occupancy tenant at the commencement of the RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.05.07 16:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2502-1999 (O&M) (O&M) (i) if he is recorded, immediately before the commencement of the President's Act, as an occupancy tenant in the latest annual records; or (ii) if he is recorded in the record estates of the former Faridkot State as (a) Muzara-i-sha (b) chakotedar khas, (c) muzara bilatai (d) muzara tabe marzi malik, (e) chakotedar nautor, of any landlord, not being the Government; or (iii) if he is recorded in the latest annual records of any estate of the former (a) dakhilkar, (b) maurussi; or (iv) if he was recorded as an occupancy tenant in the annual records on the 11th March, 1940, and (a) the right of occupancy in the land has been extinguished, but partition Farman-i-Shahi No. 6, dated the 11th March, 1947, or the Patiala and East Punjab States Union Abolition of Biswedari Ordinance, 2006 Bk. (Ordinance No. XXIII of 2006 Bk.) have not been finally completed; or (b) he has been disposses the occupation of the land at any time after the 11th March, 1940, but has not been granted any relief under the Patiala and East Punjab States Union Abolition of Biswedari Ordinance, 2006 Bk. [(v) if he is recorded, imme the Pepsu Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Amendment Act, 1969, as a Muqarraridar in the latest annual records.] if he is recorded, immediately before the commencement of the President's Act, as an occupancy tenant in the latest annual records; or he is recorded in the record-of-rights of any of the estates of the former Faridkot State as- shartia, chakotedar khas, muzara bilatai-yun sifat, muzara tabe marzi malik, chakotedar nautor, of any landlord, not being the Government; or if he is recorded in the latest annual records of any estate of the former Malerkotla State as- maurussi; or if he was recorded as an occupancy tenant in the annual records on the 11th March, 1940, and- (a) the right of occupancy in the land has been extinguished, but partition proceedings under the Shahi No. 6, dated the 11th March, 1947, or the Patiala and East Punjab States Union Abolition of Biswedari Ordinance, 2006 Bk. (Ordinance No. XXIII of 2006 Bk.) have not been finally completed; or he has been dispossessed, or deprived of his right to the occupation of the land at any time after the 11th March, 1940, but has not been granted any relief under the Patiala and East Punjab States Union Abolition of Biswedari Ordinance, 2006 Bk. if he is recorded, immediately before the commencement of the Pepsu Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Amendment Act, 1969, as a Muqarraridar in the latest annual 11 if he is recorded, immediately before the commencement of the President's Act, as an occupancy rights of any of the if he is recorded in the latest annual records of any if he was recorded as an occupancy tenant in the (a) the right of occupancy in the land has been proceedings under the Shahi No. 6, dated the 11th March, 1947, or the Patiala and East Punjab States Union Abolition of Biswedari Ordinance, 2006 Bk. (Ordinance No. XXIII sed, or deprived of his right to the occupation of the land at any time after the 11th March, 1940, but has not been granted any relief under the Patiala and East Punjab States Union Abolition of diately before the commencement of the Pepsu Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Amendment Act, 1969, as a Muqarraridar in the latest annual RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.05.07 16:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2502-1999 (O&M) [22] (O&M) Explanation II.- Where an occupancy tenant holds any land under another occupancy tenant, the former shall be deemed to be the occupancy tenant within the meaning of this clause; (i) "prescribed" means prescribed by rules made under this Act; (j) "special officer" means any officer appointed by the Government by notification in the official performing the functions and duties assigned to such officer under this Act and a special officer shall have jurisdiction to perform his functions in such local area as may be specified in the notification; (k) "the President's Act" means the States Union Occupancy Tenants Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act, 1953 (President's Act 3 of 1953); (1) references, in this Act to the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 (Punjab Act XVI of 1887), and the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (Punjab Act XVII of 1887), shall be construed as references to those Acts as in force in the State of Patiala and East Punjab States Union. Section 3 of the same reads as under: “3. Extinguishment of rights of landlords and vesting the same in occupancy tenants:- Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any law, custom or usage for the time being in force, on and from the appointed day,- (a) all right, title and interest (including the contingent interest, if any, recognised by any law, custom or usage for the time being in force) of a landlord in the land held under him by an occupancy tenant shall be extinguished; and such rights, title and interest shall vest in the occupancy tenant free from all encumbrances, if any, created i (b) the landlord shall cease to have any right to collect or receive any rent in respect of such land (including arrears of rent, if any, whether under a decree or not, for any period prior to Where an occupancy tenant holds any land under the former shall be deemed to be the occupancy tenant within the meaning of this clause; (i) "prescribed" means prescribed by rules made under this "special officer" means any officer appointed by the Government by notification in the official Gazette for performing the functions and duties assigned to such officer under this Act and a special officer shall have jurisdiction to perform his functions in such local area as may be specified "the President's Act" means the Patiala and East Punjab States Union Occupancy Tenants Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act, 1953 (President's Act 3 of 1953); (1) references, in this Act to the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 Act XVI of 1887), and the Punjab Land Revenue Act, (Punjab Act XVII of 1887), shall be construed as references to those Acts as in force in the State of Patiala and East Punjab States Union.” Section 3 of the same reads as under:- Extinguishment of rights of landlords and vesting the same Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any law, custom or usage for the time being in force, on all right, title and interest (including the contingent interest, if ny law, custom or usage for the time being in force) of a landlord in the land held under him by an occupancy tenant shall be extinguished; and such rights, title and interest shall vest in the occupancy tenant free from all encumbrances, if any, created in the land by the landlord; the landlord shall cease to have any right to collect or receive any rent in respect of such land (including arrears of rent, if any, whether under a decree or not, for any period prior to 12 Where an occupancy tenant holds any land under the former shall be deemed to be the (i) "prescribed" means prescribed by rules made under this "special officer" means any officer appointed by the Gazette for performing the functions and duties assigned to such officer under this Act and a special officer shall have jurisdiction to perform his functions in such local area as may be specified Patiala and East Punjab States Union Occupancy Tenants Vesting of Proprietary (1) references, in this Act to the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 Act XVI of 1887), and the Punjab Land Revenue Act, (Punjab Act XVII of 1887), shall be construed as references to those Acts as in force in the State of Patiala and Extinguishment of rights of landlords and vesting the same Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any law, custom or usage for the time being in force, on all right, title and interest (including the contingent interest, if ny law, custom or usage for the time being in force) of a landlord in the land held under him by an occupancy tenant shall be extinguished; and such rights, title and interest shall vest in the occupancy tenant free from all the landlord shall cease to have any right to collect or receive any rent in respect of such land (including arrears of rent, if any, whether under a decree or not, for any period prior to RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.05.07 16:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2502-1999 (O&M) [23] proved by the plaintiff that he Singh were recorded as occupancy tenants under Section 8 of the Punjab Tenancy Act,1887 in the as such. Abolition of Biswedari Ordinance, 2006 BK, acquire ownership graduated to occupancy tenants was continuously legislations. An attempt made by the appellant to make out new factual case has also failed. [24] findings recorded by the Courts below. [25] dismissed. [26] disposed off 08.04.2025 ‘R. Sharma' (O&M) the appointed day) and his liabili respect of the land shall also cease; (c) the occupancy tenant shall be liable to pay direct to the Government the land revenue payable in respect of the land; (d) the landlord shall be entitled to receive and be paid such compensation as may be determined or deemed to have been determined, under this Act. Counsel for the appellant has not been able to disp proved by the plaintiff that he, i.e. Ganda Singh along with his brother Singh were recorded as occupancy tenants under Section 8 of the Punjab Tenancy Act,1887 in the jamabandi for the year 1940 as such. Thus in view of afore-reproduced provisions, by Abolition of Biswedari Ordinance, 2006 BK, acquire ownership qua land to the extent of 3/4 graduated to the right of proprietary rights occupancy tenants was continuously legislations. An attempt made by the appellant to make out new factual case has also failed. In view thereof, this Court finds no ground to interfere in the findings recorded by the Courts below. In view of the above, the instant appeal is ordered to be dismissed. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed off. 08.04.2025 Whether speaking/ reasoned Whether reportable the appointed day) and his liability to pay land revenue in respect of the land shall also cease; the occupancy tenant shall be liable to pay direct to the Government the land revenue payable in respect of the land; the landlord shall be entitled to receive and be paid such compensation as may be determined or deemed to have been determined, under this Act. ” appellant has not been able to dispel the fact i.e. Ganda Singh along with his brother-Kaku Singh were recorded as occupancy tenants under Section 8 of the Punjab for the year 1940-41. They continued reproduced provisions, by the dint Abolition of Biswedari Ordinance, 2006 BK, plaintiffs became eligible to land to the extent of 3/4th share. Their right the right of proprietary rights as the vesting of ownership in recognized by the successive legislations. An attempt made by the appellant to make out new factual case In view thereof, this Court finds no ground to interfere in the bove, the instant appeal is ordered to be All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands (PANKAJ JAIN) JUDGE : Yes/No : Yes/No 13 ty to pay land revenue in the occupancy tenant shall be liable to pay direct to the Government the land revenue payable in respect of the land; the landlord shall be entitled to receive and be paid such compensation as may be determined or deemed to have been l the fact Kaku Singh were recorded as occupancy tenants under Section 8 of the Punjab 41. They continued the dint of came eligible to right vesting of ownership in recognized by the successive legislations. An attempt made by the appellant to make out new factual case In view thereof, this Court finds no ground to interfere in the bove, the instant appeal is ordered to be All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.05.07 16:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document