2012 (11) TMI 327 - SC - Indian Laws

Occupancy rights in the land - Held that - The phrase, any person should be given the widest possible import, and the words may cover persons other than those mentioned in various other provisions of the statute. But, if the statutory provisions suggest, that the legislature itself has intended to give a restricted meaning to the phrase, any person , then it is not open to the court to give a wide or un-restricted meaning to the words, any person . Provisions of Section 10 of the Tenancy Act put a complete embargo on a hisedar/joint-owner to claim occupancy rights. There is no agreement between the appellants and Gram Panchyat creating any tenancy in their favour. Granting the relief to the appellants would amount to ignoring the existence of Section 10 itself and it would be against all norms of interpretation which requires that statutory provisions must be interpreted in such a manner as not to render any of its provision otiose unless there are compelling reasons for the court to resort to that extreme contingent.

Issues Involved:
1. Claim of occupancy rights under the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887.
2. Applicability of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961.
3. Interpretation of the term "any person" in Section 8 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887.
4. Legality of possession and tenancy relationship.
5. Applicability of Section 10 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Claim of occupancy rights under the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887:
The appellants sought occupancy rights under Sections 5 and 8 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887, claiming they had been in cultivatory possession of the disputed land for a long period and had paid nominal rent to the Gram Panchayat. Initially, the Assistant Collector dismissed their suit, but upon appeal, the District Collector remanded the case, leading to a favorable judgment for the appellants. However, the Gram Panchayat's subsequent appeal was successful, with the District Collector ruling that the appellants were co-sharers and not tenants, thus ineligible for occupancy rights.

2. Applicability of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961:
The appellants argued that their long-standing possession and payment of nominal rent entitled them to occupancy rights under the Act, 1961. However, the Financial Commissioner and the High Court ruled that the appellants were joint owners and not tenants, and thus the provisions of the Act, 1961, were not applicable. The High Court emphasized that Section 7 of the Act, 1961, was not attracted as the appellants were not tenants.

3. Interpretation of the term "any person" in Section 8 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887:
The appellants contended that Section 8 of the Tenancy Act, which uses the term "any person," should not be restricted to tenants alone. They argued that the legislative intent was to allow any individual to establish occupancy rights on grounds other than those specified in Section 5. However, the High Court and Supreme Court upheld that the term "any person" in this context referred specifically to tenants, as per the statutory framework and legislative intent.

4. Legality of possession and tenancy relationship:
The appellants claimed a tenancy relationship with the Gram Panchayat based on their long-term possession and rent payments. However, the courts found that the appellants were joint owners and not tenants, as there was no tenancy agreement. Their possession was deemed unauthorized and illegal, disqualifying them from claiming occupancy rights.

5. Applicability of Section 10 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887:
The High Court and Supreme Court ruled that Section 10 of the Tenancy Act, which prohibits joint owners from acquiring occupancy rights in jointly owned land, applied to the appellants. The courts emphasized that granting occupancy rights to the appellants would contravene Section 10 and render it meaningless. The appellants' status as joint owners precluded them from claiming tenancy and occupancy rights under the Tenancy Act.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's judgment, dismissing the appeals. The courts consistently ruled that the appellants, being joint owners and not tenants, could not claim occupancy rights under the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887, or the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961. The interpretation of "any person" in Section 8 was restricted to tenants, and Section 10's prohibition on joint owners acquiring occupancy rights was decisive. The appeals lacked merit, and no costs were awarded.

← Previous Next →