TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1967 (11) TMI 114
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 sairdakhilkar cultivators and that Rao Jagdish Singh, Defendant No. 1, had forcibly prevented the Plaintiffs from doing cultivation and got the disputed land cultivated by Defendants Nos. 2 and 3, by interfering with the possession of the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs prayed that a decree for possession may be passed in their favour against all the Defendants. The Defendants' case, in brief, was that the village in which the land in dispute is situated is Ryotwari village and no suit could be instituted against Jagirdars under Section 326. The Defendants further alleged that the Plaintiffs had failed to pay revenue and their rights had been extinguished under Section 82 of Qanoon Ryotwari. The Tehsildar decreed the suit. The Collector on appeal upheld the order. The Commissioner on further appeal also upheld the order. On revision, the Bo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... being in possession, the cultivator not in possession shall have the right to file within three years of the date of dispossession a suit regular in Court of Tehsil on stamp paper, which may become payable on annual income of "Lagan" according to Scale in Schedule No. 4 prescribed. Section 326. (1) Cases in respect of the return of possession which has been disturbed unlawfully (Beja Tor Par) or for prevention of obstruction about agricultural lands, thrashing grounds, (Kbaliyan) road, forest, 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 arr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iso would become a dead-letter for in every case where there are arrears of land revenue, the landlord would take possession forcibly without trying to recover land revenue under Section 137. Further, Section 163 of Qanoon Ryotwari clearly provides for suits of the nature described in Section 326 of Qanoon Mal. When we turn to Section 326, it is very similar to Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 and it seems to us that the words "disturbed unlawfully" in Section 326 mean "disturbed not in due course of law". Otherwise, there is no reason why a shorter period of limitation and summary procedure is provided in Section 326 while Section 325 provides a longer period of three years for a suit for possession. 8. Some stress was laid on the words "in case of proof of trespass" in Section 326 by the Learned Counsel for the Respondent. According to him, a landlord does not commit trespass when he forcibly enters on land in the possession of a tenant whose tenancy has expired. In our view, in the context, the word "trespass" here would include forcible entry and dispossession by the landlord. 9. Reference was made to a number of English authorities in this behalf but it is not ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ved: Law respects possession even if there is no title 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 Government from forcibly taking possession of lands which had been validly resumed by Government. We are not concerned with that question here. But we do not agree with the conclusion of the High Court that a lessor is entitled in India to use force to throw out his lessee. 14. In Hillava Subbava Hegde v. Narayanappa Timmava (1911) 13 Bom. L R 1200 it was observed: No doubt, the true o....