Law: North West Frontier Province Tenancy Act, (XXV of 1950)

Section: Ss. 4, 4-A, 83 & 85

(a) North-West Frontier Province Tenancy Act (XXV of 1950), Ss. 4, 4-A, 83 & 85, proviso-Person not recorded as occupancy tenant at commencement of Act-Cannot be deemed to have become owner automatically by operation of Ss. 4 & 4-A-Availing benefits conferred by Ss. 4 & 4-A - Declaration under S. 83 to be obtained first-Suit for declaration of ownership in Civil Court, without obtaining declaration under S. 83-Not competent-Punjab Tenancy Act (XVI of 1887), S. 77.   Plaintiffs, who had not been shown occupancy tenants in the revenue records at the commencement of the North-West Frontier Province Tenancy Act, 1950, brought a suit for declaration that they had become owners of the land by virtue of the operation of section 4 of the Act. The suit was dismissed on the ground that section 83 of the Act read with second proviso to section 85 barred the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. In appeal it was contended that the plaintiffs were not seeking a declaration in respect of occupancy rights, but were seeking a declaration of their title as owners of the land, and as such, the suit was competent in a Court of general jurisdiction:   Held, that sections 4 and 4-A of the North-West Frontier Province Tenancy Act, 1950 comes into play only if a person is an occupancy tenant at the commencement of the Att, and satisfies the other conditions laid down in the sections. If he is not recorded as an occupancy tenant at the commencement of the Act, his case clearly seems to be governed by section 83 of the Act, and in order to avail himself of the benefits conferred by sections 4 and 4-A such person shall have to obtain, in the first instance, a declaration of his occupancy rights, and until such time as such a declaration has been obtained, he cannot be deemed to have become the owner by the operation of sections 4 and 4-A. The plaintiffs were not recorded as occupancy tenants in the revenue records at the relevant time, and accordingly they could not be deemed to have become owners by the operation of sections 4 and 4-A. Therefore, the relief claimed by them in the suit was in effect a declaration of their occupancy rights in the land, and only when that…