The High Court reaffirms that mere correction of revenue records, even if made after due notice and with official corroboration, is sufficient to establish tenancy for exemption under Section 17-AA of the Punjab Security of Land Tenure Act; absence of a recital in the sale deed does not outweigh consistent official entries. This judgment upholds trial court findings, narrows the applicability of pre-emption rights when bona fide corrected entries exist, and serves as binding authority for courts under its jurisdiction.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name |
RSA/899/1992 of DARSHAN SINGH Vs NAND SINGH CNR PHHC010276711992 |
| Date of Registration | 22-10-2008 |
| Decision Date | 10-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Bench | Single (HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA) |
| Precedent Value | Binding within Punjab and Haryana |
| Overrules / Affirms | Sets aside First Appellate Court judgment; restores Trial Court’s decree |
| Type of Law | Civil – Pre-emption, Tenancy, Agricultural Land Acquisition |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The court held that correction of revenue entries in favour of the vendee, carried out after due notice to owners and with official corroboration, is sufficient to prove tenancy prior to sale for Section 17-AA exemption. Official records and corroborated oral evidence outweigh mere absence of tenancy recital in the sale deed. The pre-emptor’s right must be established at three material points: date of sale, suit institution, and decision; if the land is already partitioned after the trial court’s decision, the right remains unaffected so long as co-sharer status existed at these times. Appellate court’s disbelief of revenue records without credible evidence was unsustainable. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
Agricultural land sold to defendant via sale deed; plaintiff (co-sharer) sued for pre-emption alleging no notice, stranger vendee, and manipulated revenue entries; defendant claimed exemption as prior tenant, relying on corrected entries and official testimony; trial court dismissed suit, appellate court reversed, High Court restored dismissal. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within Punjab & Haryana |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts |
| Overrules | Sets aside the judgment and decree dated 22.04.1992 of the First Appellate Court |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Clarifies that official corrections of revenue records, when properly effected after due notice and with corroboration from revenue officials, are sufficient to establish tenancy for the purposes of Section 17-AA exemption from pre-emption.
- The absence of a tenancy recital in the sale deed does not outweigh consistent and duly verified official revenue entries.
- In partitioned land matters, co-sharer status for pre-emption is judged at all three relevant dates (sale, suit, trial court decision), not affected by later partition/decree.
- Order XX Rule 14 CPC compliance is mandatory for pre-emptors; utilization or withdrawal of deposit during appeal does not defeat the remedy.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court began by reciting both parties’ cases: the plaintiff co-sharer alleged manipulation of revenue records and lack of notice, seeking pre-emption; the defendant claimed longstanding tenancy as vended land’s cultivator prior to sale, supported by corrected revenue records and corroborating oral evidence of village officials.
- The trial court had dismissed the suit, holding that the defendant’s tenancy was established by official records and due revenue process; the appellate court reversed by doubting the genuineness of revenue correction entries and absence of tenancy recital in the sale deed.
- The High Court examined the evidence and statutory provisions, holding that the correction of girdawari entries after due notice, corroborated by village officials and patwaris, sufficed to establish tenancy under Section 17-AA.
- The absence of a tenancy recital in the sale deed was held not determinative because official entries, if reliable and honestly corrected, have primacy.
- The High Court found the appellate court’s disbelief of the revenue records unsustainable in the absence of credible contrary evidence.
- Precedents such as Bachchan Singh v. Chuhar Singh and Sulle Singh v. Sohan Singh were applied to emphasize the sanctity of revenue entries and execution of mandatory court orders under Order XX Rule 14 CPC.
- The High Court concluded the land was subject to valid tenancy exemption, the suit for pre-emption could not be maintained, and the trial court’s decree was restored.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellant/Defendant)
- Correction in the revenue record was pleaded and proved; entries were corrected in April 1988 after due notice.
- Revenue officials and patwaris testified to the authenticity and due process of corrected entries; these support tenancy prior to sale for Section 17-AA exemption.
- Withdrawal and utilization of the decree deposit by the respondent (pre-emptor) does not defeat the right to pre-emption as per Order XX Rule 14 CPC.
- Criminal and partition proceedings regarding purported manipulation resulted in exoneration/abate and final partition occurred only after the trial.
Respondent (Plaintiff/Pre-emptor)
- No recital of defendant’s tenancy in the sale deed; in fact, the deed indicates possession passed from vendor to vendee, not consistent with prior tenancy.
- Oral and documentary evidence allegedly disprove tenancy; other persons cultivated the land, not the defendant.
- Despite partition proceedings, co-sharer status existed until after trial, preserving the right to pre-emption.
Factual Background
Agricultural land measuring 733 kanals 7 marlas was sold by Surinder Pal Singh and others to the defendant on 25.05.1988. The plaintiff, claiming co-sharer status in the khata, filed a pre-emption suit alleging that the defendant was a stranger and that revenue records showing defendant’s possession before sale were manipulated. The defendant resisted, asserting tenancy prior to sale, supported by girdawari corrections and official testimony. The trial court dismissed the suit; the appellate court reversed. The second appeal challenged the reversal.
Statutory Analysis
The court analyzed Section 17-AA of the Punjab Security of Land Tenure Act, interpreting it to mean that a sale to a tenant in possession prior to sale is exempt from the pre-emption right. The court held this protection is available if official records, corrected after due process and corroborated by evidence, establish such tenancy. Compliance with Order XX Rule 14 CPC, concerning deposit and withdrawal of sale price by pre-emptor, was reaffirmed as mandatory; mere pendency of appeal does not suspend the obligation.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions are recorded in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
No specific procedural innovations identified or established by the court in this judgment.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed
- 📅 Time-Sensitive – Determined critical dates for right of pre-emption and status of parties relative to sale, suit, and trial court decision.