Kamalpur Gitalpur Ex-Servicemen Coop. & Anr. Vs. Mangal Singh And Ors.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 466 of 2000
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 164 of 2000)
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 164 of 2000)
Petitioner: Kamalpur Gitalpur Ex-Servicemen Coop. & Anr.
Respondent: Mangal Singh And Ors.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 466 of 2000
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 164 of 2000)
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 164 of 2000)
Judges: K.T. THOMAS & R.P. SETHI, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jan 21, 2000
Head Note:
LAND REFORMS
Agricultural land – Permission for use for a period of 20 years – Upon expiry of the said period Sub-collector has power to order restoration – Land in dispute having fully grown paddy cultivation – Equitable relief. Held Court permitting retention of possession till harvest . Land ordered to be restored forthwith after harvesting the standing crops.
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. We do not find any merit in the contention that the Sub-collector has no authority to order restoration of possession. It is a fact, not disputed, that the Land had been utilised under the Act for the period of 20 years and the said period is over. It is actually pursuant to the suggestion made by these appellants that the High Court passed certain conditions. Normally, those conditions are not to be interfered with.
3. All the same, learned Counsel submitted that the land concerned contain the cultivation now grown ripe which can be harvested by the month of April, 2000. If that be so, we think that an equitable relief can be granted to the appellants. If the appellants would give an unconditional undertaking before the S.D.O. (Civil) Karnal within 2 weeks from today that they would surrender their possession unconditionally on or before 30th April, 2000 by harvesting the crop or without harvesting the crop standing on the respective land. If the undertaking is not filed within 2 weeks, appellants will not get benefit of even this order. If the undertaking is filed within 2 weeks, the appellants will be permitted to remain in possession till the aforesaid date of 30.4.2000.
4. With these modifications of the impugned order we dispose of this
appeal.
1. Leave granted.
2. We do not find any merit in the contention that the Sub-collector has no authority to order restoration of possession. It is a fact, not disputed, that the Land had been utilised under the Act for the period of 20 years and the said period is over. It is actually pursuant to the suggestion made by these appellants that the High Court passed certain conditions. Normally, those conditions are not to be interfered with.
3. All the same, learned Counsel submitted that the land concerned contain the cultivation now grown ripe which can be harvested by the month of April, 2000. If that be so, we think that an equitable relief can be granted to the appellants. If the appellants would give an unconditional undertaking before the S.D.O. (Civil) Karnal within 2 weeks from today that they would surrender their possession unconditionally on or before 30th April, 2000 by harvesting the crop or without harvesting the crop standing on the respective land. If the undertaking is not filed within 2 weeks, appellants will not get benefit of even this order. If the undertaking is filed within 2 weeks, the appellants will be permitted to remain in possession till the aforesaid date of 30.4.2000.
4. With these modifications of the impugned order we dispose of this
appeal.
