TMI Blog1967 (11) TMI 114X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the z by Rao Jagdish Singh and others. By this judgment the High Court accepted the applications and quashed the decision of the Board of Revenue and dismissed the claim of Lallu Yeshwant Singh, son of Nahar Singh, now deceased, represented by Babu Singh, Appellant before us. The relevant facts for appreciating the points arising in the appeal are as follows. 2. Yeshwant Singh and other sons of Lallu Nahar Singh, hereinafter referred to as the Plaintiffs, filed a suit against Rao Jagdish Singh and 4 others (Revenue Case No. 24 of 2000 S.Y.) in the Court of Tehsildar, Pargana Pichhore, District Gwalior, for the possession of some agricultural land under Section 326 of Qanoon Mal. The Plaintiffs' case, in brief, was that they were sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ilkiyat and Mamuli Maurusi will be extinguished under the following circumstances; (3) When the Khatedar keeps in arrears the land revenue of his Khata excepting the case where the collection of land revenue is ordered to be postponed;... Section 137. In case the land revenue for the whole year is not paid before one week of the date fixed for the last installment the Khatedar will be dealt with as follows: 1. By issue of process; 2. By arrest of the defaulter; 3. By attachment and sale of movable property; 4. By attachment and sale of immovable property; 5. By confiscation (Jupti) of the Khata and ejectment of the defaulter; 6. By auctioning the Khata: Provided if the arrears are due against such Khatedar who has been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , grass-pastures, gardens, trees, wells, irrigation and tanks between Malguzars and cultivators or between cultivators will be entertained in the summary jurisdiction of the Pargana Revenue Court or in the Tappa Courts within six (6) months and in case of proof of trespass or obstruction, possession and damages will be awarded against the Defendant and if the Court thinks fit it may also take bonds, quantum where of will be decided in view of the nature of the trespass or obstruction. (3) Suits beyond this duration will be entertained as per Section 325 of the Qanoon Mal in the regular jurisdiction. 5. The Board of Revenue was of the view that in case land revenue remains in arrears, the right of a tenant gets extinguished under Sect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sion alone but it is also necessary to enquire as to whether this possession is or is not wrongful. 7. It seems to us that on a true interpretation of the statutory provisions, extracted above, the Board of Revenue came to the correct conclusion. Under Section 82 (3). Qanoon Ryotwari, the right of a Khatedar is extinguished if the Khatedar keeps in arrears the land revenue of his Khata but there is no automatic extinguishment of his right because Section 137 of Qanoon Ryotwari enables the Collector to accept arrears if the Khatedar is a goon payer (khush-dehanda) and there are special reasons beyond his control for not paying the land revenue. The existence of the proviso instead of assisting the landlord's contentions assists the te ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion. As the structure of Section 326 of Qanoon Mal, read with Section 163 of Qanoon Ryotwari, is similar to Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act, there is no reason why Section 326 should be interpreted differently. 10. In Midnapur Zamindary Company Limited v. Naresh Narayan Roy AIR 1924 P C 144 : 51 I A 293 at p. 299, the Privy Council observed: In India persons are not permitted to take forcible possession; they must obtain such possession as they are entitled to through a Court. 11. In K.K. Verma v. Naraindas C. Malkani AIR 1954 Bom. 358 : 56 Bom. L.R. 308 : ILR 1954 Bom. 950 at p. 957, Chagla C.J., stated that the law in India was essentially different from the law in England. He observed: Under the Indian law the possessio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e to support it. It will not permit any person to take the law in his own hands and to dispossess a person in actual possession without having recourse to a Court. No person can be allowed to become a Judge in his own cause. As observed by Edge C.J., in Wall Ahmad Khan v. Ayodhya Kundu I L R (1891) 13 All. 537 -556: The object of the section was to drive the persons who wanted to eject a person into the proper Court and to prevent them from going with a high hand and ejecting such persons. 13. Our attention was invited to the decision of the Calcutta High Court in State of West Bengal v. Birendra Nath Basunia AIR 1955 Cal. 601. In that case the High Court refused to issue an order under Article 226 of the Constitution prohibiting the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
