MOHAN LALversusKARTAR SINGH AND ORS.

A                              MOHAN LAL
                                    v.
                          KARTAR SINGH AND ORS.

                                OCTOBER 17, 1995

B
        [B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, S.C. SEN AND G.T. NANAVATI, J.J.J


         Pepsu Te11a11cy a11d Ab•icultural Lands Act, 1955-Seclio11s 43 and
    47-Protection of tenancy lights a11d land refvnns-Cases of 1111/awful and
    unauthmised possession of land-Ambit of jwisdiction of Co/lect01~Scope
c   of mquily-Jurisdiction of Civil Cowt bmTed.

          Father of the respondents, original plaintiff filed a suit for posses-
    sion of the suit land on the basis of ownership of the land and also on the
    ground that the order of eviction passed against him by the Collector u/s
D   43 of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955, was void and
    ineffective. His case was that he had purchased the suit land from one S
    in 1955. At that time, the appellant, original defendant was in occupation
    of that land as tenant and he continued to hold the land as his tenant after
    the sale; that some time in June 1955, he approached the Village Panchayat
    as the appellant had not given him his share in the produce; that on
E   16-6-1955 a compromise was arrived at between him and the appellant
    whereundcr appellant had agreed to relinquish possession of the land as
    he was not able to pay the rent and on his part he had agreed not to recover
    the share/rent; that pursuant to the compromise the Panchayat also
    passed a resolution to th.at effect and appellant willingly handed over
F   possession of land to hin1; that \Vi thin 5 da)'S of' the corn promise appellant
    approached the SDM of that area and alleged that he was forcibly dispos-
    sessed and claimed restoration of possession u/s 43 of the Act; that the
    SDM rejected that application as not maintainable; that soon after the
    SDM was invested with the power appellant had again applied to him and
    on 12-5-1962 the SDM allowed that application and passed on order for
G   his eviction; that appellant got back possession of the land under that
    order; that he tiled an appeal to the Commissioner which was dismissed,
    his revision to the financial Commissioner was also rejected, and a writ
    petition in the High Court was also dismissed. He pleaded that as the
    order passed by the SDM was without jurisdiction and, therefore, void ab
H   initio, earlier proceedings under the Act were no bar to his filing the suit.
                                          410
                       MOHAN LAL v. KARTAR SINGH                             411

        The Civil Judge decreed the suit believing the version of the plaintiff     A
  that appt'llant had voluntarily surrendered his possession and, therefore,
  held that the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties had
  come to an end and for that reason the Sub-Divisional Magistrate had no
  jurisdiction to pass an order of eviction u/s 43 of the Act. Appellant filed
  an appeal to the District Court which was dismissed. A second appeal filed
                                                                                    B
  in the High Court was allowed and plaintill's suit was dismissed. The
  Single Judge alter considering the beneficent object of the Act and its
  material provision held that those provisions should be liberally con-
  strued; that the Act is a complete Code in itself and provides for a complete
  machinery for decision of a dispute; that it was open to the Collector while
  dealing with an application u/s 43 to go into the disputed <1uestions like        c
  whether the dispossession of the tenant was illegal and whether the com-
  promise was entered into by the tenant voluntarily or under duress; that
  the language used in section 43 shows that the legislature by necessary
  intendment, if not expressly, has given to the collector the power to elll1uire
   not only into the question whether the person concerned is liable to be          D
  ejected on the basis of certain facts aduYtted or already proved before the
  Civil Court but also into the existence of those fact, i.e., it was open to the
  Collector to decide the disputed question namely whether the compromise
  pleaded by the land owner was entered into voluntarily or under duress
  and as he found on ent1uiry that the compromise was arrived at under
  duress and, therefore, possession of the land owner was unlawful, the             E
· jurisdiction of the Civil Court was barred in respect of that matter, by
  virtue of section 47 of the Act.


        In Letters Patent Appeal filed by the plaintiff the High Court set
 aside th~ order passed b,y the Single Judge holding that as possession \\'3S       F
 handed over by the appellant in vie"' of the compromise, plaintitl's posses-
 sion was, pn·nia facie, neither unla"ful nor opposed to the provisions of
 the Act; that it was open to the Civil Court to consider whether the
 condition precedent to the exercise of power by the Collector was satisfied
 or not; that as possession was taken by the landlord in pursuance of the           G
 compromise between him and the tenant through the instrumentality of
 the Panchayat it was not unlawful and, therefore, the Collector had no
 jurisdiction to go into the matter and put the tenant in possession; that
 the lfUestion whether the compromise was a result of fraud or coercion was
 not a question which was required to be settled, decided or dealt with under
 the Act and, therefore, section 47 was no bar to the Civil Court going into        H
    412                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A   that <1uestion; that the enquiry to be conducted by the Collector u/s 43
    being of su1nmary nature, the Collector does not have jurisdiction to
    decided Civil disputes of con1plicated nature \\'herein disputed question of
    fact relating to status and title to property are required to be determined
    and further that even if it becomes necessary for the Collector incidentally
    to decide such a disputed matter that would be only for the purpose of
B
    giving immediate possession to the tenant but his decision \\1ould not
    become final as it is the Civil Court which can pronounce finally on such
    matters.

          This appeal had been lilcd against the judgment of ihe High Court.
C   The appellant contended that u/s 43, the Collector had the jurisdiction to
    decide whether the respondent plaintiff was in wrongful or unauthorised
    possession of the land and whether the other condition contained in clause
    (b) was satisfied or not. The respondent conceded that a mere denial by
    the opponent·that his possession was riot unla\l·i'ul or unauthorised and
    that the other conditions contained in clause (a) or (b), as the case may
D   be, was not satisfied, will not be sufficient to suit the jurisdiction of the
    collector and that before the Collector caffexercise his powers u/s 43 it is
    not necessary that the facts constituting the conditions precedent to the
    exercise of power are either admitted or first established in a Civil Court.
    The respondent contended that he had not merely disputed that he was in
E   unlawful or unauthorised possession but had further pleaded that he had
    taken possession under a voluntary compromise evidencing surrender of
    tenancy and also produced a compromise deed in support of the plea.
    Therefore, the iluestion which arose for consideration by the Collector \Vas
    not merely whether the respondent was in nnla\vfnl or unauthorised pos-
    session of the land and not entitled to its use and occupation, but a further
F
    question whether that compromise was voluntary or \\'as entered into as a
    result of duress or coercion, as contended by the appellant, arose and that
    was not a question which was re<JUired to be decided under the Act and
    therefore, it was open to the Civil Court to go into that iluestion and the
    Civil Court's decision should be regarded as final on that point.
G
          Allowing the appeal, this Court

          HELD : 1. The Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955, has
     been enacted with a view to amend and consolidate the law relating to
H tenancies and agricultural lands and to provide for certain measures of
                               .        .   ..
                        MOHAN LAL v. KAR.TAR SINGH                          413

    land reforms. The object of the Act, as can be gathered from its provisions, A
    is to restrict the rights of the landlord, to protect the tenancies, confer new
    rights on the tenants and to implement land reforms. It restricts the right
    of the landowner to retain land beyond the permissible limit for his
    personal cultivation and requires him to make a choice, once and for all,
    of the lands which he wants to retain. Sections 7 and 7A put restriction on
                                                                                    B
    his right to terminate tenancy. It also confers on the tenant an important
    and a valuable right to acquire proprietary rights over the lands held by
    him as a tenant. Now no tenancy can be terminated except in accordance
    with the provisions of the Act or except on the grounds specified in
    sections 7 and 7A. The Act also provides machinery for ofeciding the
    questions that are likely to arise in the implementation of the Act and C
    further provides for appeals and other miscellaneous matters. The Act is
    thus a beneficent legislation and a complete code in itself. [422-D-F]

          2. Section 43 is aimed at a person who may be found by the Collector
    in unlawful or unauthorised possession of land because of one of the two D
    contingencies mentioned in that section. Even if the transfer in his favour
    is by an act of the parties or by operation of law, if it is declared to be
•   invalid under the provisions of the Act,· the Collector can treat it as
    unlawful and eject him from the land. So also, a person in possession of
    land, if found not entitled to its use and occupation under the provisions
    of the Act, can also be ejected therefrom. This provision clearly Indicates E
    the intention of the legislature that it should prevail over not only the acts
    of the parties but operation of laws also, in the matter of transfer and
    possession of agricultural lands. The purpose of this provision is to see
    that the object of protection of tenancy rights and land reforms is fulfilled.
    Therefore, it confers a new right and provides a quick and effective remedy F
    for enforcement of that right. It also confers power on the Collector to
    impose a penalty. The power can be exercised by the Collector suo motu.
    The words "under the Act" used in clauses (a) and (b) indicate the scope
    of enquiry and fix the ambit of the jurisdiction of the Collector to deal with
    cases of unlawful and unauthorised possession of the land. They also lead G
    to the conclusion that if the nature of possession is to be determined in
    terms of clauses (a) and (b) then it would be a matter to be decided under
    the Act. The decision of the Collector made under or in pursuance of the
    Act has be~n made final in the sense that it cannot be called in question
    in any Court. Section 47 specifically bars the jurisdiction of Civil Court in
    matters which are required to be settled, decided or dealt with by the H
    414                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995rsUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A Collector. It, therefore, becomes clear that the legislature wanted the
    Collector to be an exclusive forum for the matters falling within the scope
    of section 43. [422-G-H, 423-A-D]

          3. On consideration of the object of the Act, the purpose of section
    43 and the bar contained in section 47 it becomes clear that the legislature
B   intended to oust the jurisdiction of the Civil Court and confer exclusive
    jurisdiction on the Collector in matters which fall within the scope and
    ambit of section 43. [423-E]

          Dhulabhai & Ors. v. State of MP. & Anr., [1968] 3 SCR 662, relied on.
c         4. Merely because the Collector acting under section 43 has to make a
    summary enquiry it cannot be said that he can decide only simple questions
    as regards the nature of possession and not those questions which are com-
    plicated but have bearing on the nature of possession. [424-D]

D          5. When an application is made to the Collector u/s 43 he has to
    decide whether possession of the person against whom an application is
    made is wrongful or unauthorised because of either of the two contingen·
    cies mentioned in that section. It is his jurisdiction to enquire and decide      •
    whether transfer of possession from the applicant to the opponent is
    invalid uuder the provisions of the Act or not. Similarly, it would be within
E   his jurisdiction to decide whether the person against whom an application
    is made is not entitled under the provisions of the Act to the use and
    occupation of the land or which he is alleged to be in wrongful or un-
    authorised possession. If the person against whom an application is made
    claims that he is not disentitled under the provision of the Act to the use
p   and occupation of the land then the Collector will have jurisdiction to
    examine the validity of the grounds on the basis of which the claim is made.
    If the application is resisted on the grouud that there was a valid surrender
    then the Collector will have the jurisdiction to decide whether there was
    surrender or not and if a further question arises whether that surrender
    was voluntary or not that also would fall within the scope of his jurisdic-
G   lion. Such a question cannot be said to be a collateral question not falling
    exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Collector. Though it is not specifi·
    cally provided in the Act that whether the surrender was voluntary or not
    shall be decided by the Collector on true construction of section 43, that
    even that would be a matter required lo be settled or decided under the
H   Act. It appears that the legislature has advisedly not specified the question
                 MOHAN LAL v. KART AR SINGH [NANAVATI, J.]                     415

    to be decided by the Collector because on various grounds the party can           A
    claim that his possession is· not unlawful or unauthorised.
                                                              [424-E-H, 425-A-B]
           Once it is held that the <1uestion whether the surrender was volun-
    tary or not fell within the jurisdiction of the Collector, it will have to be
    further held that in view or the bar contained in section 47 (2) Collector's      B
    decision on that point became final and could not have been called in
    <1uestion in the suit. In view or the bar contained in Section 47 (i) the Civil
    Court had no jurisdiction to consider the same. [425-E]

         Hamam Singh & Ors. v. Dalip Sillgh & A111:, (1963) PLR 1133; Hartej
    Bahadur Singh v. State of Pu!ljab & Ors, (1964) PLR 751 and Su/ocha!la            C
    Amma v. Narayanan Nair, JT (1993) 5 SC 448, distinguished.

          CIVIL APPELLATE .JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1232 {N)
    of 1973.

         From the Judgment and Decree dated 15.3.71            of the Punjab & D
    Haryana High Court in L.P.A. No. 366 of 1969.

          Ms. S. Janani, Adv. for the Appellant.

          V.C. Mahajan and S.S. Khanduja for the Respondents.
                                                                                      E
          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

           NANAVATI, J. This appeal, under certificate granted under Article
    133 (l)(a) of the Constitution, by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana,
'   is against its decision in LPA No. 366 of 1969.
                                                                                      F
           Nahar Singh, original plaintiff and father of the respondents, on
    18.5.1964, filed a suit in the Court of sub-judge, Dhuri for possession of
    the suit land, on the basis of ownership of the land and also on the ground
    that the order of eviction passed against him by the Collector under section
    43 of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955 (hereinafter G
    referred to as 'the Act') on 12.5.62 was void and ineffective. His case was
    that he has purchased the suit land from Sharif Hussain on 24.2.1955. At
    that time Monan Lal, original defendant and appellant in this appeal, was
    in occupation of that land as a tenant. Mohan Lal continued to hold the
    land as his tenant after the sale. Some time in June 1955, he approached
    the Village Panchayat as Mohan Lal had not given him his share in the H
    416                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A   produce. On 16.6.1955 a compromise was arrived at between him and
    Mohan Lal whereunder Mohan Lal had agreed lo relinquish possession of
    the land as he was not able to pay the rent and on his part he had agreed
    not to recover his share/rent. Pursuant to the compromise the Panchayat
    also passed a resolution to that effect and Mohan Lal willingly handed over
    possession of the land to him. On 21st June, 1955 i.e. within 5 days of the
B   compromise Mohan Lal approached the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of that
    area and alleged that he was forcibly dispossessed and claimed restoration
    of possession under section 43 of the Act. The Sub Divisional Magistrate
    rejected that application as an application under section 43 could be made
    to the Collector and not to him. Soon after the SOM was invested with that
    power Mohan Lal again applied to him. On 12.5.1962 the SOM allowed
c   that application and passed an order for his eviction. Mohan Lal got back
    possession of the land under that order on 25th May 1962. He filed an
    appeal to the Commissioner. It was dismissed. His revision application to
    the Financial Commissioner was also rejected. He then filed a writ petition
    in the Punjab and Haryana High Court and that was also dismissed. It was
D   also his plea that as the order passed by the SOM was without jurisdiction
     and, therefore, void ab- initio, earli_er proceedings under the Act were no
    bar to his filing the suit.

           The learned Civil Judge believed the version of the plaintiff that
E   Mohan Lal had voluntarily surrendered his possession and, therefore, held
    that the relationship uf landlord and tenant between the parties had come
    to an end and for that reason the Sub- Divisional Magistrate had no
    jurisdiction to pass an order of eviction under section 43 of the Act. He
    decreed the suit. Mohan Lal filed an appeal to the District Court but it
    failed. He then filed a second appeal in the High Court. It was not disputed
F   before the learned Single Judge who heard that appeal that if Mohan Lal
    had been forcibly dispossessed by Nahar Singh on 16.6.1955, then Nahar
    Singh would be a person in wrongful or unauthorised possession of the
     land, to the use and occupation of which he would not be entitled under
     the provisions of the Act. In view of the rival contentions, what the learned
G   Judge was required to decide was "whether the dispute about the manner
     in which the respondent obtained possession of the land from the appel-
     lant on 16th June, 1955, was to be decided by the Collector or by the Civil
     Court'. The contention raised on behalf of Nahar Singh was that the
     dispute before the Court was not a matter covered by section 47, and that
    before the Collector could assume jurisdiction, the facts covered by clauses
            MOHAN LAL v. KAR TAR SINGH [NANAVATl.J.]                  417

{a) and (b) of sub-section (1) of section 43 should have been either A
admiued or established in a Civil Court and that the Collector did not have
jurisdiction under section 43 to adjudicate upon matters relating to status
or title over the land. The learned Singie .T udge after considering the
beneficent object of the Act and its material provisions held that those
provisions should be liberally construed. He also held that the Act is a B
complete Code in itself and provides for a complete machinery for decision
of a dispute like the one which was before him. He further held that il was
open to the Collector while dealing with an application under section 43
of the Act to go into the disputed questions like whether the dispossession
of the tenant was illegal and whether the compromise was entered into by C
the tenant voluntarily or under duress. He further held that the language
used in section 43 shows that the legislature by necessary intendment, if
not expressly, has given to the Collector the power to enquire not only into
the question whether the person concerned is liable to be ejected on the
basis of certain facts admitted or already proved before the Civil Court but D
 also into the existence of those facts. In other words, he held that it was
open to the Collector to decide the di.sputed question namely whether the
 compromise pleaded by the land owner was entered into voluntarily or
 under duress and as he found on enquiry that the compromise was arrived
at under duress and, therefore, possession of the land owner was unlawful, E
the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was barred in respect of the matter, by
virtue of section 47 of the Act. He, therefore, allowed the appeal and
dismissed the plaintiffs suit.

       Aggrieved by the decision Nahar Singh filed a Letters Patent Appeal
                                                                              F
in the High Court. Jn view of its previous decisions in Hanianz Singh and
01'. v. Dalip Singh and Ors., (1963) P.L.R. 1133 and Hartej Bahadur Singh
v. 17ze State of Punjab and Ors., (1964} P.L.R. 751, wherein it has been held
that section 7 of the Act which lays down a ground on which the landlord
can terminate tenancy does not constitute a bar to tenancy rights being
given up by the tenant himself when he no longer wishes to remain in G
possession as a tenant, the High Court held that as possession was handed
over l:iy Mohan Lal in view of the compromise Nahar Singh's possession
was, p1ima facie, neither unlawful nor opposed to the provisions of
the Acl. Relying upon the observations. made by I this Court in
State of Punjab v. Bhai Ardaman Singh and Ors., AIR {1969) SC H
13 the High Court further held that it was open to the Civil Court lo
    418                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995) SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A consider whether the condition precedent to the exercise of power hy the
  Collector was satislied or not. The High Court further held that as posses-
  sion was taken by the landlord in pursuance of the compromise between
  him and the tenant through the instrumentality of the Panchayat it was
  certainly not unlawful and, therefore, the Collector had no jurisdiction to
  go into the matter and put the tenant in possession. The decision of the
B
  Collector was held as void and of no legal effect. As regards the question
  whether the compromise was a result of fraud or coercion it held that it
  was not a question which was required to be settled decided or dealt with
  under the Act and, therefore, section 47 of the Act was no bar to the Civil
  Court going into that question. As the enquiry to be conducted by the
C Collector under section 43 is of a summary nature the High Court held that
  the Collector does not have jurisdiction to decide civil disputes of compli-
  cated nature wherein disputed questions of facts relating to status and title
  to property are required to be determined. The High Court further held
  that even if it becomes necessary for the Collector incidentally to decide
D such a disputed matter that would be only for the purpose of giving
  immediate possession to the tenant but his decision would not become final
  as it is the Civil Court which can pronounce finally on such matters. The
  High Court therefore, allowed the Letters Patent Appeal set aside the
  order passed by the learned Single Judge and restored that of the lower
  appellate Court.
E
          During the pendency of this appeal Mohan Lal died and he is now
    represented by his legal heirs. When this appeal came up for hearing before
    a two Judge Bench of this Court, it doubted correctness of the decision in
    Bhai Ardama11's case (supra) and expressed the view that it requires
    reconsideration for the following reasons :
F
                ."We do not see any warrant for the proposition that in order
             to attract section 43(1)(b) there should be a specific and express
             provision in the Tenancy Act itself to the effect that those who are
             in illegal occupation will not be entitled to use the land. The
G            Collector has been invested with the power to eject unlawful
             occupants under section 43(1)(b). The provision will become
             meaningless if even in cases where a tenant admittedly in posses-
             sion hitherto is forcibly dispossessed, and that the Collector has
             no jurisdiction to evict him by holding an appropriate enquiry on
H            being satisfied that the tenant was forcibly dispossessed. Certainly,
           MOHANLALv. KARTARSJNGH[NANAVATI,J.]                          419

       no express provision providing that a person in unlawful occupa- A
       tion will not have a right to continue in possession is necessary. By
       the very nature of his occupation being found to be unlawful, he
       has no legal right to continue in possession is necessary. By the
       very nature being found to he unlawful, he has no legal right to
       ~ontinue in occupation of the land. It is implicit in section 43(1 )(b)
                                                                               B
       that an unauthorised or unlawful occupant has no right under the
       said Tenancy Act to reinain in possession. In view of the numerous
       judgments of this Court in regard to tenancy legislations, the said
       decision requires constitute a complete code and are specially
       enacted to protect the tenants without obliging them to resort to
       time-and-money consuming civil suit, the decision in Ardan1an           c
       Singh~IJ case requires reconsideration. •
                                               11




     Sections 43 and 47 of the Act, in the context of which we have to
decide the question which arise for our consideration, read as under :

          "Section 34. (1) Any person who is in wrongful or unauthorised       D
       possession of any land :

           (a) the transfer of which either by the act of parties or by the
        operation of law is invalid under the provisions of this act, or

           (b) to the use and occupation of which he is not entitled under     E
       the provisions of this Act, may, after summary enquiry, be ejected
       by the Collector, who may also impose on such person a penalty
       not exceeding five hundred rupees.

          (2) the Collector may direct that whole or any part of the
       penalty imposed under sub-section (1) shall be paid to the person
                                                                               F
       who has sustained any loss or damage by the wrongful or un-
       authorised possession of the land.

           Section 47. (1) No Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to settle,
       decide or deal with any matter which is under this Act required         G
       to be settled, decided or dealt with by the Financial Commissioner,
       the Collector or the prescribed authority.

           (2) No order of the Financial Commissioner, the Commis-
       sioner, the Collector or the prescribed authority made under or in
       pursuance of this Act shall he called in question in any Court."   H
    420                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A          Jn Blrai Ardaman Singh's case the tenants had applied to the Collec-
    tor under section 43 of the Pepsu Agricultural Lands and Tenancy Act of
    1953 (Pepsu Act 8 of 1953), which had come into force on December 13,
    1953, for restoration of possession of lands which were in their possession
    earlier, alleging that they were forcibly dispossessed by the land owner and,
B   therefore, he was in wrongful and unauthorised possessrnu of those lands.
    The Collector granted the applications and ordered restoration of posses-
    sion. The orders were confirmed in appeal by the Commissioner. A learned·
    Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the petitions filed against those
    orders. In appeals under the Letters Patent the High Court reversed the
    orders passed by the learned Single Judge on two grounds.
c
           It held that the Act 8 of 1953 did not have retrospective operation
    and, therefore, no order for restoration of possession could have been
    passed as dispossession had taken place in 1943 i.e. long befote the Act
    was brought into force. It also held that the proceedings of the Collector
D   were vitiated because the landowner was not given an opportunity to lead
    evidence. This Court upheld the view of the High Court that section 43
    had no retrospective operation. It also held that in order to attract the
    jurisdiction of the Collector to hold a summary enquiry and to pass an
    order of eviction and restoration of possession under clause (b) of section
E   43(1), it was necessary to show that the person in wrongful or unauthorised
    possession was also not entitled to the use and occupation of the land
    under the provisions of the Act. As no provision was pointed out which
    had rendered the landowner disentitled by virtue of the provision of that
    Act to the use and occupation of the land, it was held that the condition
F   precedent to the investment of jurisdiction in the Collector being absent,
    the orders passed by the revenue authorities were without jurisdiction.
    Obviously that view was taken by this Court because in that case the tenants
     had made applications under section 43 of Act 8 of 1953 and, therefore,
     unless the conditions mentioned in that section were satisfied no order of
    eviction could have been passed thereunder. The said Act did not have
G    retrospective operation and the remedy provided hy section 43 was in-
     tended for acts of unlawful or unauthorised dispossession which were to
     take place after that Act came into force and for those cases where a
     person was found in unlawful or unauthorised possession since before that
     Act and the Act had rendered that person disenlilled to the use and
H    occupation of that land. It was in this contex1 that this Court observed that
             MOHAN LAL v. KARTAR SINGH [NANAVATI,J.]                        421

no provision of that Act was pointed out to show that the landlord besides         A
being in unla\vful or unauthorised possession, was not entitled to the use
and occupation of those lands under !lie Act. In view of the peculiar facts
of that case, we are of the opinion that, it was correctly decided by this
Court. Another factor which pmsibly in!lucnced this Court in taking that
view was that prior to the passing of that Act the tenants did not enjoy the       B
protection that was granted by section 7 of the Act and it was open to the
landlord to terminate the tenancy at any time without giving any reason.

       In this case, it is not in dispute that if Nahar Singh had in fact
dispossessed Mohan Lal forcibly then Nahar Singh would be a person in
unlawful and unauthorised possession and also not entitled to the use and          C
occupation of that land. It was not contended before us, and in our opinion
rightly, that even after the Act has come into force, it would stilJ be
necessary for the person applying after section 43 for an order of eviction
to show that the other person is not only in unlawful or unauthorised
possession of the land out is also not entitled to its use and occupation          D
under the Act.

       We will now deal with the contentions raised before, us. The conten-
tion raised on behalf of the appellant was that under section 43, the
Collector had the jurisdiction to decide whether Nahar Singh was in                E
wrongful or unauthorised possession of the land and whether the other
condition contained in clause (b) was satisfied or not. In order to find that
out the Collector had also the jurisdiction to consider the correctness or
otherwise of the grounds on the basis of which it was contended by the
respondent that it was lawful. It was conceded on behalf of the respondent
that a mere denial by the opponent that his possession is not unlawful or
                                                                                   F
unauthorised and that the other condition contained in clause (a) or (b),
as the case may be, is not satisfied, will not be sufficient to the jurisdiction
of the ColJector. It was also not disputed that before the Collector can
exercise his powers under section 43 it is not necessary that the facts
constituting the condition precedent to the ex~rcise of power are either           G
admitted or first established in a Civil Court. What was contended on
behalf of the respondent was that the respondent had not merely disputed
that he was in unlawful or unauthorised possession but had further pleaded
that he had taken possession un<ler a voluntary compromise evidencing
surrender of tenancy and also produced a compromise deed in support of H
         422                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] SUPP.4 S.C.R.

     A that plea. Therefore, the question which arose for consideration by the
         Collector was not merely whether the respondent was in unlawful or
"'       unauthorised possession of the land and not entitled to its use and occupa-
         tion; but, a further question whether that con1promisc was voluntary or \Vas
         entered into as a result of the duress or coercion as contended by the
     B   appellant arose and that was not a question which was required to be
         decided under the Act. Therefore, it was open to the Civil Court to go into
         that question and the Civil Court's decision should be regarded as final on
         that point.

               The rival contentions require us to examine the true scope and ambit
     c of section 43. Was it intended to make available a remedy in simple cases
         which can be decided by holding a summary enquiry? Did the legislature
         intend to exclude from its purview those cases where the dispute becomes
         complicated because of the facts of the case and pleas raised by the
         contesting party? As can be seen from its Preamble, the Act has been
     D   enacted with a view to amend and consolidate the law relating to tenancies
         and agricultural lands and to provide for certain measures of land reforms.
         The object of the Act, as can be gathered from its provisions, is to restrict
         the rights of the landlord, to protect the tenancies, confer new rights on
         the tenants and to implement land reforms. It restricts the right of the
     E   landowner to retain land beyond the permissible limit for his personal
         cultivation and requires him to make a choice, once and for all, of the lands
         which he wants to retain. Sections 7 and 7A put restrictions on his right to
         terminale tenancy. It also confers on the tenant an important and a valuable
         right to acquire proprietary rights over the lands held by him as a tenant.
         Now no tenancy can be tern1inatcd except in accordance with the
     F   provisions of the Acl or except on the grounds specified in sections 7 and
         7A. The Acl also provides machinery for deciding the questions that are
         likely to arise in the implementation of the Act and further provides for
         appeals and other miscellaneous matters. The Act is thus a beneficent
         legislation and a complete code in itself.
     G
               Section 43 is aimed at a person who may be found by the Collector
         in unlawful or unauthorised possession of land because of one of the two
         contingencies mentioned in that section. Even if the transfer in his favour
         is by an act of the parties or by operation of law, if it is declared to be
     H   invalid under the provisions of the Act, the Collector can treat it as
            MOHAN LAL v. KARTARSINGH jNANAVATI,J.J                       423

unlawful and eject him from the land. So also, a person in possession of A
land, if found not entitled to its use and occupation under the provisions
of the Act, can also be ejected therefrom. This provision clearly indicates
the intention of the legislature that it should prevail over not only the acts
                                     J
of the parties but operation of laws also, in the matter of transfer and
possession of agricultural lands. The purpose of this provision is lo see that B
the subject of protection of tenancy rights and land reforms is fulfilled.
Therefore, it confers a new right and provides a quick and effective remedy
for enforcement of that right. It also confers power on the Collector to
impose a penalty. The power can be exercised by the Collector suo nzon1.
The words "under the Act" used in clauses (a) and (b) indicate the scope
of enquiry and fix the ambit of the jurisdiction of the Collector to deal with
                                                                               c
cases of unlawful and. unauthorised possession of the land. They also lead
to the conclusion that if the nature of possession is to be determined in
terms of clauses (a) and (b) then it would be a matter to be decided under
the Act. The decision of the Collector made under or in pursuance of the
Act has been made final in the sense that it cannot be called in question D
in any Court. Section 47 specifically bars the jurisdiction of Civil Court in
matters which are required to be settled decided or dealt with by the
Collector. It, therefore, becomes clear that the legislature wanted the
Collector to be an exclusive forum for the matters falling within the scope
of section 43.                                                                 E

       On consideration of the object of the Act the purpose of section 43
and the bar contained in section 47 it becomes clear that the legislature
intended to oust the jurisdiction of the Civil Court and confer exclusive
jurisdiction on the Collector in matter which fall within the scope and ambit
                                                                                F
of section 43. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellant
this view would be in consonance with the principles of interpretation
pointed out by this Court in D/mlablwi and Others v. Ihe State of Madhya
Pradesh and Another, [1968) 3 SCR 662.

      It was next contended that we should not construe section 43 liberally G
and include within its scope other questions which may also arise for
determination, before it can be decided by the Collector as to whether
possession of the person against whom an application is made is unlawful
or unauthorised. It was submitted that the enquiry which is contemplated
by section 43 is only a summary enquiry and, therefore, complicated H
    424                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A   questions of status or title and right lo possess, where an elaborate enquiry
    would be necessary, should not be regarded as falling \vithin the jurisdic-
    tion of the Collector. We do not find any force in this contention. Though
    the enquiry is summary it is judicial in nature. As pointed out by this Court
    in the case of Ardaman Singh (supra), though ''the trial is summary, the
B   Collector is bound to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him not on a
    subjective satisfaction ..... but on a judicial determination of facts which
    invest him with jurisdiction to pass an order in ejectment". The word
    11        11
      summary implies a short and quick procedure instead of or, as an
    alternative to, the more elaborate procedure ordinarily adopted or
    prescribed for deciding a case. The proceedings before a Court, tribunal
c   or an authority are called summary proceedings if it is not required to
    follow the regular formal procedure but is authorised to follow a short and
    quick procedure for expeditious disposal. Therefore, merely because the
    Collector acting under section 43 has to make a summary enquiry it cannot
    be said that he can decide only simple questions as regards the nature of
D   possession and not those questions which are complicated but have a
    bearing on the nature of possession. The contention raised if accepted
    would result in unduly restricting the scope of enquiry and thereby frustrat-
     ing the very purpose of enacting section 43.

E       We, therefore, hold that when an application is made to the Collector
  under section 43 he has to decide whether possession of the person against
  whom an application is made is wrongful or unauthorised because of either
  of the two contingencies mentioned in that section. It is his jurisdiction to
  enquiry and decide whether transfer of possession from the applicant to
  the opponent is invalid under the provisions of the Act or not. Sin1ilarly, it
F
  would be within his jurisdiction to decide whether the person against w.hom
  an application is made is not entitled under the provisions of the Act to
  the use and occupation of the land of which he is alleged to be in wrongful
  or unauthorised possession. If the person against whom an application is
  made claims that he is not disentitled under the provisions of the Act to
G the use and occupation of the land then the Collector will have jurisdiction
  to examine the validity of the grounds on the basis of which the claim is
  made. If the application is resisted on the ground that there was a valid
  surrender then the Collector will have the jurisdiction to decide whether
   there was a surrender or not and if a further question arises whether that
H surrender  was voluntary or not that also would fall within the scope of his
             MOHAN LAL v. KARTARSINGH!NANAVATl,J.)                          425

jurisdiction. Such a question cannot be said to be a collateral question not       A
falling exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Collector. Though it is not
specifically provided in the Act that whether the surrender was voluntary
or not shall be decided by the Collector on true construction of section 43,
we hold that even that would be a matter required to be settled or decided
under the Act. It appears that the legislature has advisedly not specified         B
the questions tu be decided by the Collector because on various grounds
the party can claim that his possession is not unlawful or unauthorised.

       So far as the facts of. this case are concerned the case of the
respondent was that he had obtained possession of the land under a
voluntary surrender by the appellant. It was also contended on his behalf          C
that voluntary surrender of tenancy rights is not prohibited by the Act as
already held by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Hamam Singh and
Others v. Dalip Singh and Another, (1963) P.L.R. 1133 and Hartej Bahadur
Singh v. The State of Punjab and Others, (1964) P.L.R. 751. But in this case
the surrender was disputed by the appellant. Therefore, the question which         D
really arose before the Collector was whether there was a voluntary sur-
render of ten~ncy rights. For that reason the two decisions relied upon by
the learned counsel for the respondent are of no help to him.

      Once it is held that the question whether the surrender was voluntary
                                                                                   E
or not fell within the jurisdiction of the Collector, it will have to be further
held that in view of the bar contained in section 47 (2) Collector's decision
on that point became final and could not have been called in question in
the suit. In view of the bar contained in section 47 (1) the Civil Court had
no jurisdiction to consider the same. It is, therefore, not necessary to
consider the alternate contention that the decision of the Collector
                                                                                   F
operated as res judicata in view of Explanation VIII to section 11 and to
refer to the decision of this Court in Sulochana Amma v. Narayanan Nair,
.IT (1993) 5 S.C. 448 wherein it is held that an order of an issue which had
arisen directly or substantially between the parties or there privies and
decided finally by a competent Court or Tribunal, though of limited or             G
special jurisdiction, will operate as res judicata in a subsequent suit or
proceeding, notwithstanding the fact that such Court of limited or special
jurisdiction was not a competent Court to try the subsequent suit.

      We are, therefore, of the 0pinion that the Division Bench of the             H
    426                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995) SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A   Punjab and Haryana High Court was not right in allowing the Latters
    Patent Appeal and holding that the Civil Court had the jurisdiction to
    consider whether possession of the land by the respondent was lawful or
    not in view of the compromise and voluntary surrender and that the order
    passed by the Collector in that behalf was not binding on the Civil Court.
B   We allow 'this appeal, set aside the order passed by the Punjab and
    Haryana High Court in L.P.A. No. 366 of 1969 and restore the order
    passed by the learned Single Judge in R.S.A. No 1496 of 1965. The
    respondent shall pay the cost of the appellant throughout.

    R.A.                                                     Appeal allowed.