JAIMAL Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by certificate granted to the appellants by the High Court of Punjab under Article 133 (1) (c) of the Constitution raises one point, namely, whether a sub-tenant is entitled to purchase the land from the landowner under Section 18 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act (Punj. Act X of 1953)-hereinafter referred to as the Act.

(2.) It would be sufficient to give few facts. The appellants, Jaimal and Ram Sigh, applied under Section 18 of the Act to the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Hissar, to purchase 280 Kanals 4 marlas of land situate in village Mehnda, Tehsil Hansi, District Hissar. The land was originally owned by respondents Nos. 4 to 10, who had given this land on lease to Sheo Parshad, respondent No. 8. It is not in dispute that the Appellants and their fathers had been in occupation of the land in dispute for the last 80 years, as sub-tenants under Sheo Parshad, respondent No. 8. During the pendency of the application, respondents Nos. 4 to 10 sold the land in dispute, on October 25, 1957, to Sheo Parshad, and also in favour of his two sons. The Assistant Collector, by his order dated November 30, 1959, accepted the application of the appellants and allowed them to purchase 274 Kanals of land for Rs. 6730. On appeal, the Collector varied the order but the variation is not material for the purpose of this appeal. The appellants then preferred an appeal to the Commissioner and Sheo Parshad filed Revision Petition to him against the order of the Collector. The Commissioner upheld the claim of the appellants to purchase the land under Section 18 of the Act at the price assessed by the Assistant Collector, but he modified the order in respect of 85 kanals 8 marlas which had been sold to the sons of Sheo Parshad. The final order in the proceedings was passed by the Financial Commissioner who, by his order dated August 27, 1962, held that the appellants were not entitled to purchase the land under Section 18 of the Act. Thereupon the appellants filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking to quash the order of the Financial Commissioner. The High Court was also of the opinion that the appellants being sub-tenants were not entitled to apply under Section 18 of the Act.

(3.) The answer to the question whether the appellants are entitled to apply under Section 18 of the Act depends upon the interpretation of Section 18, which reads as follows: