Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887

15 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act.

SHYAM LALversusDEEPA DASS CHELA RAM CHELA GARIB DASS

2016 INSC 49627 February 2015Matter referred to larger bench

Shyam Lal, the appellant, claimed continuous possession of agricultural land in Faridabad for about 27 years under a lease that expired in May 2005, asserting that he became a statutory tenant protected by the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953. The respondent, Deepa Dass Chela Ram Chela Garib Dass, argued that

GAON SABHA AND ANR.versusNATHI AND ORS.

2004 INSC 19723 March 2004Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined a dispute over compensation for land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, where the land was recorded as Gair Mumkin Pahar. The appellants, Gaon Sabha, argued that the land vested in the Gaon Sabha under the Delhi Land Reforms Act and that the private respondents were not Bhumidhar or Asa

BAKHATAWARversusSHRI SATNARAIN ATID ORS.

1996 INSC 152319 December 1996Appeal(s) allowed

Shri Neki, a tenant of demised agricultural land for over 50 years, paid one‑third of the crop produce as rent to the landlord's agent. In 1978 the rabi crop failed and he could not pay the share, but later paid the amount. The landlord's General Power of Attorney (GPA) filed an eviction application under Section 9 of

SANWAT SINGHversusZAIL SINGLF AND ORS.

1996 INSC 150517 December 1996Appeal(s) allowed

Dalip Kaur sold her land to Jeet Kanwar in 1967. Zail Singh obtained a decree of pre-emption and attempted to take possession of the property, which was then occupied by the appellant who claimed to be a tenant of the vendor since before 1957. The trial court granted a perpetual injunction in favor of the appellant, bu

ASSA SINGH (D) BY LRS.versusSHANTI PARSHAD (D) BY LRS. & OTHERS

2021 INSC 74317 November 2021Dismissed

The appellants, claiming to have purchased land from a Mahant, obtained an order of ejectment against the respondent tenant under Section 14A of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953. The tenant contested the existence of a landlord‑tenant relationship, arguing that the Mahant had no authority to convey title a

AJMER SINGH AND ORS. ETC.versusSTATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

1989 INSC 35317 November 1989Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined appeals by tenants (appellants) against land‑owners (respondents) concerning the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953. The land‑owners, heirs of an evacuee, had been allotted land and sought eviction of tenants, claiming they were "small land‑owners" whose holdings were below the permiss

RAJINDER KUMAR BANSAL & ORSversusMUNICIPAL COMMITTEE & ORS.

2021 INSC 40517 August 2021Appeal(s) allowed

The case concerned land originally leased to Louis Club for club purposes, on which a pavilion was constructed and later sub‑let to another club and partially transferred to a Municipal Committee. The landlord filed an ejectment petition alleging non‑payment of rent, unauthorised sub‑letting and change of use. The High

SUBHASH CHANDversusSTATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

2010 INSC 88816 December 2010Dismissed

The mother of the appellant filed an application for recovery of rent and eviction of a tenant under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953. The tenant argued that he was entitled to occupancy rights and therefore not liable for rent, and that the application should be treated as a suit under Section 77(3) of th

FATEH SINGH AND ANOTHER ETC.versusSEWA RAM AND OTHERS ETC.

1983 INSC 11813 September 1983Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined a dispute arising from the acquisition of 196 bighas of land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, where the owners, a mortgagee, a tenant and a sub‑tenant (Sewa Ram) each claimed compensation. The owners argued that, having redeemed the mortgage under Section 15 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act

GURNAM SINGH AND ORS.versusTHE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER (CIVIL), KAITHAL AND ORS.

1996 INSC 37012 March 1996Dismissed

The appellants had occupied certain Shamlat Deh lands as tenants for about twenty years before 1975, after which their lease expired and no new lease was granted. The lands are vested in the Gram Panchayat. The Assistant Collector, invoking Section 7 of the Punjab Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 and Rules 19 and 20

PREM NATH AND ORS. ETC.versusFINANCIAL COMMISSIONER AND ORS. ETC.

1994 INSC 6110 February 1994

The case concerned land in Delhi that was originally evacuee property and was allotted in 1970 to Prem Nath, who later sold it to another party. Tenants of the land claimed that, upon allotment, the allottee became a Bhumidhar under the Delhi Land Reforms Act (DLRA) and that they thereby acquired Bhumidhari rights, ren

RICHPAL SINGH AND OTHERS ETC.versusDALIP

1987 INSC 2459 September 1987Dismissed

The appellants, landlords, obtained an ejectment decree against the respondent under Section 77(3) of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 for non‑payment of rent, and the decree was executed without any appeal. The respondent then filed a civil suit claiming he was a mortgagee in possession, not a tenant, and contended that t

AJMER KAURversusSTATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

2004 INSC 3767 May 2004Dismissed

The appellant, Ajmer Kaur, challenged the revenue authorities' re‑determination of her father Daya Singh's land holdings under the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972. The Collector had initially declared 3.12 hectares surplus in 1976, an order that became final after the appeal was dismissed in 1979. After the death of Daya

TARA CHAND & ORS.versusGRAM PANCHAYAT JHUPA KHURD & ORS.

2012 INSC 5106 November 2012Dismissed

The appellants, Tara Chand and others, claimed occupancy rights over a 78-kanal land in Jhupa Khurd, asserting they were tenants under Sections 5 and 8 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887. Their ancestors had been recorded as joint‑owners (hisedars) of the shamilat deh since before 1935‑36 and paid nominal rent to the Gram

SHYAM LALversusDEEPA DASS CHELA RAM CHELA GARIB DASS

2016 INSC 4965 July 2016Appeal(s) allowed

Shyam Lal held an agricultural lease from 29 May 1996 to 28 May 2005, but the lease was not registered. After the lease expired he continued to occupy the land and filed a suit for injunction to restrain the landlord from ousting him. The landlord cross‑claimed a mandatory injunction for vacation, arguing that the tena

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Search by issue, statute, judge or citationSign in to search