Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J.@mdashHaving lost in two rounds of litigation, the Plaintiff has approached this Court by preferring the present regular second appeal. Appellant-Plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he is owner in possession of the land measuring 64 Kanals 16 Marlas, the details and description whereof have been given in the head-note of the plaint. It was further prayed that a decree for permanent injunction be granted restraining the Defendants not to dispossess the Appellant-Plaintiff from the suit land by way of execution of orders dated 6th September, 1991 and 7th October, 1991 passed by the Court of Assistant Collector (2nd Grade), Jagadhri u/s 14(A)(2) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as, ''the Land Tenures Act'').
2. It was pleaded in the suit that originally Juna and his brother were inducted as tenants in the suit land by the forefathers of Defendants on a promise that they would not be ejected from the land in dispute. It was stated that when the lease deed was given to the ancestors of Plaintiff, the land in dispute was full of shrubs and bushes, and due to the hard-work and labour put-in by the Plaintiff the same was made cultivable. It was further stated that in jamabandi for the year 1917-18 Juna has been shown in possession of the suit land. After the death of Juna, Chetu Ram came into possession of the suit land. It was further stated that there was an understanding between the landlord and tenants that they will not be ejected from the suit land by its owner. The ownership could not be conferred upon Chetu Ram due to his illiteracy, even though by passing of The Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as, ''the Vesting Act''), he had become owner of the property.
3. This Court need not to give the detailed facts as it is admitted that due to non-payment of the rent, eviction of the Appellant from the suit land was ordered by the revenue authorities and those orders were upheld by this Court in CWP No. 1224 of 1999 vide an order dated August 3, 1999 and thereafter, the SLP filed against the order of this Court was also dismissed. Once the order of ejectment of the Appellant-Plaintiff has been upheld up to the level of Hon''ble the Apex Court, Appellant cannot say that execution proceedings be not carried and he be declared an owner in possession.
4. Mr. R.S. Mamli, Advocate appearing on behalf of the Appellant-tenant, has stated that by virtue of the Vesting Act, the Appellant had become owner of the suit property, and therefore, the courts below were not justified to say that the Civil Court has No. jurisdiction to try the suit. There is a fallacy in the argument advanced by Mr. Mamli. I have seen the plaint, in which it has been stated that Chetu Ram deceased due to illiteracy had not prayed for confirmation of the ownership, even though he had become a tenant by virtue of enactment of the Vesting Act. To qualify as occupancy tenant, Appellant has to satisfy the conditions laid in the Vesting Act. After ejectment has been upheld by the Hon''ble Apex Court, this claim No. longer survives.
5. Furthermore, in para No. 2 of the plaint, it has been specifically averred as under:
2. ... the Plaintiff did not pay the same under the impression that he is occupancy tenant and not tenant at Will. Ultimately, he was ordered to be ejected and this order remained intact even upto the Apex Court of India, and now after searching old record the Plaintiff claimed occupancy tenant right by filing suit u/s 77(3)(d) of the Punjab Tenancy Act in the Court of ACIG, Jagadhri and also filed application along with that suit alleging that the Plaintiff is occupancy tenant over the land in suit and as such he cannot be ejected in view of the order dated 6.9.1991 and 7.10.1991 believing that he is not bound to pay rent as claimed by the Defendant, in the Court of A.C.Ist Grade Jagadhri, but the version of the Plaintiff was not accepted and rejected the application of the Plaintiff illegally vide order dated 29.10.1999 and the Collector Yamunanagar also illegally rejected the appeal vide order dated 27.9.2000 alleging that the Plaintiff is estopped to claim occupancy rights over the land in suit. But the law is very clear on the subject that Section 14(A) (1) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act does not affect the occupancy right of the Plaintiff over the land in suit and judgment of the Apex Court of India, in 1995 PLJ 256, is very clear that there is No. estoppal against statute. So the orders dated 6.9.1991 and 7.10.1991 are illegal, null and void, ineffective, nonest not binding upon the Plaintiff and the jurisdiction vested in the Revenue Courts has not been exercised in accordance with law.
6. In reply thereto, it was stated in the written statement that the Appellant is not entitled to claim himself as occupancy tenant as after the death of Chetu Ram, the land was inherited by his daughter Bhuria and it is wrong to say that after the death of Bhuria the Appellant-Plaintiff has inherited the property.
7. The lower appellate Court took into consideration documents Ex.D2 to Ex.D6. Document Ex.D2 is the order passed in appeal instituted by the Appellant-Plaintiff, wherein it was held that in the year 1963-64 Chetu Ram was recorded as a Gair Marusi tenant. The Appellant-Plaintiff claims his title from Chetu Ram. It was held by the appellate Court below in order Ex.D2 that the plea raised by the Appellant-Plaintiff that he is a Marusi tenant is not tenable. Against the order Ex.D2, revision petition Ex.D4 was filed, in which an argument was raised that under the Vesting Act, a Marusi tenant becomes owner of the property and therefore, the order of ejectment passed under the Land Tenures Act will not eclipse the rights of the Appellant-Plaintiff after enactment of the Vesting Act. This argument was also rejected as Appellant has been held to be Gair Marusi tenant and not Marusi tenant. It has been held in ''Jaleb Khan and Ors. v. Commissioner, Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon and Ors.'' 2009(4) Recent Civil Reports 385 and ''Joginder Singh and Ors. v. The Deputy Commissioner, Kurukshetra and Ors.'' 2010 (4) RCR 425 that only a Marusi tenant can claim ownership under the Vesting Act and the Gair Marusi tenant is not entitled to the same. Furthermore, in the present suit, No. prayer was made by the Appellant-Plaintiff that he be declared as an owner being tenant in possession under the Vesting Act. The only claim made in the plaint was that since in the earlier litigation, the Appellant-Plaintiff could not project himself as occupancy (Marusi) tenant, therefore, the execution proceedings be held to be bad. The courts below have rightly held that once execution has been upheld up to Hon''ble the Supreme Court, under the Vesting Act, Civil Court has No. jurisdiction to try the suit.
8. Mr. Mamli has further relied upon a judgment rendered by a Full Bench of this Court in ''Shiv Charan v. Financial Commissioner, Haryana and Ors.'' 2004 (3) PLR 569, wherein it has been held that in respect of the categories of occupancy tenants envisaged in Section 2(f) of the Vesting Act, a civil suit will lie. The ratio of law laid down in Shiv Charan''s case (supra) is not attracted in this case as No. relief was sought that the Appellant be declared as owner being an occupancy tenant. It was only pleaded that since earlier thereto the Appellant-Plaintiff could not project his claim, therefore, he be declared as an owner in possession and the execution proceedings be held to be bad.
9. Counsel for the Appellant has also relied up on ''Bahadur Singh and Ors. v. Shangara Singh and Ors.'' 1995 PLJ 256 to contend that on 15th June, 1952 once the Vesting Act was enacted, u/s 3, 2(a) and 2(f) thereof, the tenants became absolute owners of the land. Learned Counsel, by relying upon this judgment, is losing sight of the distinction, as held in Jaleb Khan''s case and Joginder Singh''s case (supra), that only a Marusi tenant will become occupancy tenant and Gair Marusi tenant is not entitled to the same.
10. Hence, there is No. merit in the present appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.
