BHAJAN LAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Bhajan Lal was the owner of land measuring 21 Bighas, 2 Biswas and bearing Khasra Nos. 11/12, 18, 20 and 43 in village Sukhohan. Shadi was the tenant of the land for agricultural use. Alleging that Shadi had failed to pay the rent due by him for the period Kharif Season 1957 to Rabi Season 1960, Bhajan Lal applied under S. 14-A of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, to the Assistant Collector for an order in ejectment against Shadi. The application was dismissed by the Assistant Collector and that order was confirmed in appeal by the Collector. The Financial Commissioner set aside the order and remanded the case for a fresh decision by order, dated 8/01/1962.

(2.) There was yet another proceeding regarding the same lands. On 20/02/1961, Shadi applied to the Assistant Collector to purchase the lands under S. 18 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953. The Assistant Collector rejected the application. The Collector confirmed that order. By order, dated 5/10/1962, the Financial Commissioner remanded the case for determining whether Shadi was in occupation of the lands for six years before the date of the petition.

(3.) The Assistant Collector held that Shadi could claim to purchase the lands under S. 18 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, on paying Rs. 8,409. 00 in ten equal instalments to Bhajan Lal. The Assistant Collector held in the proceeding for ejectment started by Bhajan Lal holding that the tenant Shadi had without sufficient cause committed default in paying rent and ordered that he be evicted. The two orders were passed on 30/04/1964. Whereas in the proceeding started by Bhajan Lal he held that Shadi was liable to be evicted from the lands because he had without sufficient cause committed default in paying rent, in the proceeding filed by Shadi the Assistant Collector declared that Shadi was entitled to purchase the lands from Bhajan Lal. The two orders were challenged respectively by Shadi and Bhajan Lal in revision applications filed before the Additional Commissioner. The Additional Commissioner set aside the order in favour of Shadi and dismissed the application filed by Shadi. In a revision application, the Financial Commissioner set aside the order of ejectment against Shadi and restored the order of the Collector declaring him entitled to purchase the lands.