Even a True Owner Cannot Dispossess a Tenant Without Due Process: P&H High Court Affirms Restoration of Possession to Tenant

"Tenancy rights are heritable unless specifically excluded by statute" –  In a significant ruling reinforcing the protection of tenancy rights and condemning extra-legal dispossession by statutory bodies, the Punjab and Haryana High Court, on 22 January 2026, dismissed a second appeal filed by the Gram Panchayat, Dhani Khanbahadur, upholding the restoration of possession to the legal heirs of a deceased cultivating tenant.

Justice Deepak Gupta, reaffirmed settled principles of law that tenancy rights are heritable, and a person in settled possession—whether tenant or otherwise—cannot be evicted except through due process of law, particularly where judicial protection via injunction was already in place.

Auction Conducted to Oust Tenants During Pendency of Proceedings is Null and Void

The dispute traces back to April 6, 1985, when the Gram Panchayat conducted an auction of the suit land, shortly after the death of the original tenant, Kulwant Rai, who had been in cultivating possession as a gair maurusi for over 35 years. His heirs—the plaintiffs—filed a civil suit challenging the auction and asserting that they inherited tenancy rights and were illegally dispossessed, despite injunction orders protecting their possession.

The First Appellate Court, reversing the trial court’s dismissal of the suit, had decreed in the plaintiffs' favour, holding that:

“The auction proceedings dated 06.04.1985 were nothing but a short-cut method to oust the plaintiffs and were conducted during the pendency of injunction and ejectment proceedings.”

Justice Deepak Gupta agreed with this conclusion, finding no perversity or legal error in the appellate court’s approach. He observed that the auction was a direct violation of judicial restraint earlier imposed and that no lawful procedure under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 had been followed before dispossessing the plaintiffs.

Heritability of Tenancy Rights Recognised and Protected

Crucial to the plaintiffs’ success was the High Court’s categorical reaffirmation of the heritable nature of tenancy rights, unless explicitly negated by statute.

Justice Gupta held:

“Tenancy rights, unless expressly excluded by statute, are heritable. No provision has been pointed out by the Gram Panchayat which would extinguish the tenancy upon death of the tenant without recourse to due process.”

Accordingly, upon the demise of Kulwant Rai, the plaintiffs and pro forma defendants (his legal heirs) rightfully stepped into his shoes, acquiring tenancy rights over the suit land. The Court noted that earlier civil litigation had also conclusively recognised Kulwant Rai as a tenant, and that the Gram Panchayat’s failure to complete pending ejectment proceedings under Section 7 before resorting to auction was fatal to its case.

Mandatory Injunction to Restore Possession During Pendency of Injunction is Legally Sound

The plaintiffs had also alleged that they were forcibly dispossessed during the pendency of the civil suit, in violation of an interim injunction order passed by the trial court. They moved an application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC, seeking restoration of possession and contempt proceedings.

Justice Gupta held that:

“Even a true owner cannot dispossess a person in settled possession except in accordance with law. Where dispossession takes place during pendency of the suit, or in violation of subsisting judicial orders, the civil Court is not powerless to restore possession and grant mandatory injunction.”

The Court ruled that the First Appellate Court was justified in ordering restoration of possession through a mandatory injunction, especially when Gram Panchayat failed to show lawful resumption of possession, and when the ejectment proceedings admittedly remained pending until July 1986, well after the illegal auction.

Second Appeal Dismissed for Lack of Substantial Question of Law

The Court further held that no substantial question of law arose under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as the findings of the appellate court were based on:

• Uninterrupted revenue entries, affirming cultivating possession of the tenant;
• The 1983 civil court decree recognising tenancy and restraining dispossession without legal recourse;
• Admissions in the defendants’ own evidence;
• A consistent legal framework favouring procedural safeguards before eviction.

Justice Gupta concluded:

“The reasoning adopted by the First Appellate Court is legally sound and firmly rooted in evidence… The trial Court committed a clear error in declining relief despite recording findings in favour of the plaintiffs on tenancy and possession.”

Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed, and the judgment and decree dated 21.11.1997 passed by the Additional District Judge, Hisar, were affirmed.

Key Takeaway for Panchayats and Landowners:

This judgment sends a strong reminder that statutory bodies, including Gram Panchayats, must strictly adhere to due process before seeking eviction of tenants. Even possession acquired through auction is susceptible to nullification if it occurs during pendency of injunctions or without completion of statutory ejectment proceedings.

Date of Decision: 22 January 2026