Punjab & Haryana High Court Rejects Ownership Claim of ‘Gair Marusi’ Occupants; Holds Non-Occupancy Tenants Cannot Claim Proprietary Rights
Case Name: Om Parkash and Others v. Harpal Singh and Others
Date of Judgment: 22 January 2026
Citation: RSA-2439-2018
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virinder Aggarwal
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the Regular Second Appeal and affirmed the concurrent findings of the Courts below, holding that persons recorded as ‘Gair Marusi’ (non-occupancy occupants) in revenue records cannot claim the status of occupancy tenants or seek declaration of ownership merely on the basis of long possession. The Court held that statutory provisions conferring occupancy or proprietary rights must be strictly construed, and unless tenancy is clearly established, no rights under Section 5(2) of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 or the Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act, 1952 can be claimed.
Summary: The appellants–plaintiffs instituted a civil suit seeking declaration of ownership and permanent injunction in respect of agricultural land, asserting that they and their predecessors had been in continuous cultivating possession of the land for decades as ‘Gair Marusi’ occupants without payment of rent, except land revenue payable to the Government. They claimed that occupancy rights had devolved upon them from their uncle Fakira through Mutation No.6304 dated 04.02.1981 and that, by virtue of long possession, they had become owners of the suit land.
The defendants contested the suit, asserting exclusive ownership and contending that Fakira died issueless in 1980, resulting in extinguishment of any permissive or non-occupancy rights. It was pleaded that entries describing Fakira and the plaintiffs as ‘Gair Marusi Darina Kasht’ did not confer tenancy or occupancy rights and that ownership never vested in the plaintiffs.
The Trial Court dismissed the suit after framing and deciding multiple issues on title, possession, locus standi and maintainability. The First Appellate Court affirmed the dismissal. In second appeal, the plaintiffs reiterated their claim based on long possession and revenue entries.
The High Court examined the scope of a second appeal under Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918 and reaffirmed that no substantial question of law was required to be framed. On merits, the Court relied upon consistent revenue entries from Jamabandi 1955–56 onwards, which uniformly recorded Fakira and thereafter the plaintiffs as ‘Gair Marusi Darina Kasht’. The Court reiterated settled law that the expression ‘Gair Marusi’ denotes non-occupancy, and such an occupant is not a tenant unless rent and tenancy relationship with the landowner is established.
Placing reliance on Ram Kishan v. Jagdish, Tara Chand v. Bihari Lal and Jaleb Khan v. Commissioner, Gurgaon Division, the Court held that a ‘Gair Marusi’ cannot claim occupancy rights under Section 5 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887, as tenancy is a sine qua non for invoking the provision. The Court further held that the 1952 Act, which divests ownership rights of landlords, must be interpreted strictly, and cannot be invoked where tenancy itself is not proved.
Decision: The Regular Second Appeal was dismissed. The Punjab and Haryana High Court affirmed the judgments and decrees passed by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, holding that the appellants were not entitled to declaration of ownership or injunction.