http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 1031  of  1992 Appeal (civil)  1032     of  1992

PETITIONER: RAMESH KUMAR SATISH KUMAR AND SONS

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: GURU SINGH SABHA (REGD.) AND ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       30/01/2001

BENCH: V.N.Khare, S.N.Variava

JUDGMENT:

L.....I.........T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T..J       J U D G M E N T

     S.  N.  VARIAVA, J.

     These  Appeals are against a Judgment dated 23rd July, 1991  by which the Letters Patent Appeal against a  Judgment dated 4th June, 1991 was summarily dismissed.

     Briefly  stated  the facts are as follows:   One  Shri Mohan Lal was the owner of one Plot bearing No.  I-D/14 B.P. in  NIT  Faridabad.  The said Mohan Lal had built  5  shops. The  shops  were  constructed  on a small  portion  of  land belonging  to him, but they also occupied an adjacent  strip of  land  which  belonged   to  Rehabilitation   Department, Haryana, Chandigarh.  The said Mohan Lal had let out these 5 shops  to  the  Appellants in these two Appeals.   The  said Mohan Lal expired on 3rd February, 1977.  By a Circular/Memo dated  28th  February, 1984 the Haryana  Government  decided that "Adjacent Land Correctional Area" should be transferred to  occupants on certain conditions.  The Appellants applied to the State Government for allotment to them of the portion of  the  land, on which the shops stood.  On 4th  May  1985, Mohan Lals widow who had become the owner, donated the land to  Mohan  Lal  and  shops  to  the  1st  Respondent  Sabha. Pursuant  to  the  Application of the  Appellants,  on  27th March,  1986,  the  Government  offered   the  land  to  the Appellants  on  payment  of certain amounts.  On  coming  to learn  of  this  the  1st  Respondent  made  representations claiming  that  they were the actual occupants and that  the land  should  be allotted to them.  The Government issued  a letter  dated  24th June, 1987 to the  Tehsildar  clarifying that the land was to be transferred to the actual occupants. The  Government  stated  that  the 1st  Respondent  was  not entitled  to  get  this  land   transferred  to  them.   The Government  clarified  that a strip of land used by the  1st Respondent as an approach road could be transferred to them.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

As  a  result  of this clarification  the  Chief  Settlement Commissioner,  Haryana  issued a letter to the Tehsildar  to transfer  the  land to the Appellants.  The  1st  Respondent then filed a Writ Petition before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana  claiming that as they were the actual occupants the land  had to be allotted to them and not to the  Appellants. This  Writ  Petition has been allowed by the impugned  Order dated  4th  June, 1991.  In the impugned Order it  has  been held  that  as per the policy of the Government  dated  28th February,  1984 the land had to be allotted to a person  who was  in  the  de jure occupation of the land.  It  was  held that,  the  1st Respondent being the owner of the shops  and the  Appellants being the tenants, it is the 1st  Respondent who must be deemed to be in occupation.  It is held that the allotment had to be to the 1st Respondent.  Mr.  Ganguli and Mr.   Sanghi  have  assailed this Order on the  ground  that under  the Circular dated 28th February, 1984 the  allotment had  to  be  to the actual occupant and not to the  de  jure occupant.   They  submitted  that this was  clear  from  the Government’s  letter dated 24th June, 1987 and also from the fact  that  the  term  "occupant" can only  mean  an  actual occupant.   In  support  of their contention that  the  term "occupant"  can  only mean an actual occupant,  they  relied upon  the cases in Amba Prasad v.  Abdul Noor Khan and  Ors. reported  in 1964 (7) SCR 800, and Industrial Supplies  Pvt. Ltd.   v.  Union of India reported in (1980) 4 SCC 341.   On the  other  hand, Mr.  Gopal Subramaniam submitted that  the Appellants  were  mere tenants of the shops.   He  submitted that  the  strip of land in question was appurtenant  to  an adjoining   land  belonging  to   the  1st  Respondent.   He submitted  that  the  Government policy was to  dispose  off "adjacent  land  correctional  area".  He submitted  that  a plain  reading  of the Policy as well as the Orders and  the Forms issued pursuant to this Policy make it very clear that the  land was to be allotted to a person who was in de  jure occupation  of the land.  He submitted that, therefore,  the impugned Order was correct and required no interference.  We have  considered arguments of the parties.  In our view, the High  Court  fell in error in coming to the conclusion  that under  the Policy dated 28th February, 1984 allotment had to be  to a person who was in de jure occupation.  In our view, the  question of interpretation of the term "occupant" would only  have arisen if the Government had not clarified as  to whom  they wanted to allot the land.  Once the Government by its letter dated 24th June, 1987 clarified that the land was to  be  transferred to the actual occupant no question  then arose  of  interpreting the term "occupant" as meaning a  de jure  occupant.  Even otherwise, the authorities relied upon by  Mr.  Ganguli clearly establish that the term  "occupant" means  a  person  in  actual occupation.   Thus  it  is  the Appellants  who  are entitled to allotment.  Mohan  Lal  had trespassed   on  land  belonging   to   the   Rehabilitation Department.   Thus shops constructed on those lands go  with the  land.  For the above reasons, in our view, the impugned Order  cannot  be  sustained and requires to be  set  aside.@@        JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ However  before  that  is done certain aspects needs  to  be@@ JJJJJJJ noted.   Mr.  Ganguli and Mr.  Sanghi very fairly admit that portions  of  the shops stand on land belonging to  the  1st Respondent.  Between the parties it is agreed that the shops occupy  4 ft.  of land belonging to the 1st Respondent.  Mr. Ganguli  and  Mr.   Sanghi  state that  their  clients  will demolish the portion of the shops falling on the land of the 1st Respondent and hand back that land to the 1st Respondent

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

within one month from today.  In view of these statements no orders  need  be passed in respect of this 4 ft.   strip  of land  belonging to the 1st Respondent.  Further pursuant  to an  order  dated  25th July, 1994 the Appellants  have  been permitted  to  deposit rental amounts in this Court.   Order dated  9th January, 1998 directs that the amounts  deposited are to be kept invested.  Now it is held that Appellants are entitled  to  the  land   belonging  to  the  Rehabilitation Department  and the shops go with the land.  Thus Appellants would not have to make payment of rent to the 1st Respondent except  for the fact that the shops also stand on 4 ft.   of land belonging to the 1st Respondent.  This is approximately 1/3rd  of  the  area  occupied by the shops.   In  our  view Appellants must therefore pay to the 1st Respondent 1/3rd of the  rent  paid earlier.  We therefore direct that 1/3rd  of amount deposited with earned interest thereon be paid by the Registry  to the 1st Respondent and the balance with  earned interest  thereon be returned to the Appellant who deposited the  amount.   For  the reasons set out above and  with  the above  observations  the  Appeals  are  allowed.   The  Writ Petition  filed  by  the 1st  Respondent  stands  dismissed. There will, however, be no Order as to costs.