Summary
The Court held that dismissal for default of the Government’s ejectment suit attracted Section 180(2) of the United Provinces Tenancy Act and conferred hereditary-tenant status on the appellants. The jurisdictional premise of unauthorised occupation for public-premises eviction was therefore absent. It ordered restoration of the specified land within twelve weeks and equivalent land and lease protection for displaced ex-servicemen.
Issues
- What effect dismissal for default of the Section 180 suit had on the occupants’ status.
- Whether public-premises eviction retained its jurisdictional foundation and what restoration was required.
Provisions considered
- Section 180(1) and (2), United Provinces Tenancy Act, 1939The reproduced ejectment provision was construed to include a suit brought but dismissed for default within subsection (2), giving the possessors hereditary tenancy in these circumstances. (¶ 9–10)
Held
- The State had sued on the Union’s behalf to eject the non-occupancy tenants. Dismissal for non-prosecution on 6 April 1977 attracted Section 180(2), and the appellants became hereditary tenants. (¶ 10)
- Hereditary tenancy removed the foundational jurisdictional fact of unauthorised occupation necessary for public-premises proceedings. The resulting authority and High Court orders were without jurisdiction. (¶ 10)
- The specified khatauni land not already possessed by the appellants was to be restored within twelve weeks. If that displaced ex-servicemen holding Union leases, the Union had to provide equivalent land on equivalent leases within the same period. (¶¶ 10(1)–(2), 12)
Result
Appeal allowed and judgment set aside; land restoration and equivalent replacement land and leases for any displaced ex-servicemen directed within twelve weeks.