K. Kannan, J.@mdashThe application in CM No. 13598 of 2010 has been filed by the writ petitioners for review of the order that was rendered by this Court on 12.0S.2010. The judgment had been rendered on merits in the presence of the respondent, although there was no representation on behalf of the petitioners. The application for review was made principally on the ground that the judgment suffers from a patent error in observing that by virtue of the provisions of the Pepsu Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act, 1954 (hereinafter called ''the 1954 Act''), the property became vested in the private respondents who claimed vesting of the property under the Act, without taking note of Farman-i-Shahi, dated 11th March, 1947, that accorded to the owner 1/3rd share. On the day when the 1954 Act came into being, there existed no relationship of landlord and tenant with reference to l/3rd share that had been granted to the petitioner. The Act that provided for vesting required the continuation of landlord tenant relationship till the date when the Act was passed in order that such vesting took place.
2. Notices had been sent to all the private parties, who had been contending as owners, who were the erstwhile tenants and who claimed the benefit of the 1954 Act and invited parties to argue on the point of effect of Farmain-i-Shai on the vesting rights guaranteed under the 1954 Act.
3. The petitioners placed reliance on the Farman-i-Shahi, dated 11th March, 1947, that declared "the relationship of landlords & occupancy tenant must come to an end. The lands now held in occupancy rights in the State will be apportioned as follows:
i) in the case of occupancy rights u/s 5 of the Tenancy Act one third to the landlords and two thirds to the tenants.
(italics supplied)
It appears that there had been a subsequent civil suit at the instance of some of the tenants seeking for a right to l/3rd share in the property as well, claiming that l/3rd had been vested in them by adverse possession. Their contention was that the 1954 Act made them the owners and the landlord s l/3rd share had become also the property of the tenants. The suit was dismissed in Civil Suit No. 289 of 1979 vide decree dated 22.03.1982.
4. The learned Senior Counsel, Shri Pawan Kumar refers to a judgment of this Court in Atma Singh and others v. Financial Commissioner, Punjab and others 1965 Revenue Rulings XLIV 77, to say that reading the Pepsu Abolition of Biswedari Ordinance, Farman-i- Shahi No. 6 and Pepsu Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act, together would show that any proceedings which had been concluded and became final under the Farman-i-Shahi or the Ordinance could not be interfered with under the Act. The moment the apportionment was done under the Farman-i-Shahi, the relationship between the landlord and the tenant had completely ceased to exist. It was not necessary to complete the partition under the Farman-i-Shahi and that actual possession should have passed to the erstwhile landlord.
5. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of some of the respondents Shri Anmol Rattan Sidhu, states that this judgment itself considered passages which would show mat primacy of the Farman-i- Shahi would arise only in cases where partition had become complete and that otherwise in terms of the Abolition of Biswedari Ordinance, the provisions of Farman-i-Shahi would itself be rendered void. The relevant clause is "the provisions of the Farman-i-Shahi No. 6, dated Motibagh Palace, Patiala, the 11th March, 1947, in so far as they are repugnant to the provisions of this Ordinance shall, to the extent of the repugnancy, be void." The Ordinance requires the determination of holdings through the Partition Commissioner, ''landlord'' in terms of Section 2(h) under the Ordinance would mean an owner of land in which a tenant has or establishes immediately before the notified date a right of occupancy under either Section 5 or Section 6 or Section 7 or Section 8 of the Tenancy Act in force in the Union and includes a joint Hindu family and a limited owner. Sub Section (6) of Section 8 of the Ordinance makes the decision of the Financial Commissioner to be binding on all persons. Section 26 declares that no civil court or any other authority shall have the jurisdiction to deal with the question which is required to be settled by the Financial Commissioner or the Partition Commissioner. The learned senior counsel points out that in Atma Singh''s case there had been a reference to the order of Partition Commissioner, dated 28.01.1955 that made abundantly clear that the partition proceedings in that case had been completed under the Farmani- Shahi.
6. I do not see how any portion of the judgment in Atma Singh''s case would help all the respondents. The learned Judge was actually rejecting the plea taken on behalf of the tenants that even the mutation which was made subsequently granting a l/3rd right to the landlord was merely a paper transaction. The Court was actually holding that such a contention was not possible, for, it would mean going against the revenue records to which a statutory presumption of correctness attached itself. The Court did not even think it was necessary that there must have been an actual partition. This aspect of the case has been considered also in the civil court proceedings where the attempt of some of the tenants to claim absolute ownership by reference to the 1954 Act was rejected on a holding that at best the tenant and the landlord could be treated joint owners under the Farman-i-Shahi for 2/3rd and l/3rd respectively and consequently, there cannot be any adverse possession by one co-owner against another co-owner. Even now it is argued that all the respondents have been in continuation, possession of the property. It may be so but it cannot detract from the fact that landlord''s l/3rd share had been preserved under the Farman-i-Shahi and that there contained no recitals under the Farman-i-Shahi that were repugnant to the provisions of the Pepsu Abolition of Biswedari Ordinance. I have already extracted the provisions of the Farman-i-Shahi which directed the landlord tenant relationship to have come to an end under its terms.
7. The issue that the tenants are in possession of whole of the property is not relevant. The issue is whether the 1954 Act could be attracted to a situation where there existed a Farman-i-Shahi that delineated the landlords and the tenants'' rights and predicated to each a particular share. I find the judgment in Atma Singh''s case completely covers the case and in terms of the judgment, there is already a civil court decree rejecting the contentions of some of the tenants that they had become the owners of the whole property. Although all the respondents here were not parties to the civil court decree, I would find the reasoning of the civil court judgment is correct and would apply for other tenants as well.
8. The impugned order is set aside and the proceedings to the Under Secretary, dated 4th July, 1988 as affirmed in the subsequent proceedings of the Divisional Collector, dated 28.11.1988 and Sub-Divisional Collector, dated 20.12.1988, are, accordingly, quashed. The Petitioners'' l/3rd share shall stand restored in the relevant revenue records relating to the property in dispute.
9. The writ petition is allowed and judgment already passed stands reviewed in the light of what is contained above.
