GOPAL RAM Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On the death of Sita Bai, Respondent 10, a substitution application has been preferred by the appellants. But now their learned counsel says that it is futile to pursue the application because she was a legal representative of one of the original respondents, Munshi Ram and the estate of Munshi Ram is otherwise adequately represented. It is therefore prayed that no orders need be passed on that application. Ordered accordingly.

(2.) Section 18 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 specifically provides that the right to purchase an area is available to a tenant only against a landowner "other than a small landowner". That the appellants herein were tenants of a small landowner stands settled by an inter partes decision of this court in Ajmer Singh v. State of haryana. It transpires that an avenue thereafter was sought to be opened by filing a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution. Permission to withdraw the same was obtained by making a statement that the Financial Commissioner, Haryana would be approached by the appellants for appropriate relief. This is how a dead horse was flogged and the matter has been brought back before us by way of this appeal via the Financial Commissioner and the High court, the latter having dismissed the writ petition of the appellants in limine.

(3.) The High court has rightly taken the view that the status of the landowner as to whether he is a small landowner or a big landowner is to be reckoned and determined on the basis of the position as existing on 15/4/19533 when the above-mentioned Act was brought into force. It is not denied that lands which then were fallow and were described in the revenue records as "banjar kadim" and "banjar jadid" did not fall within the purview of the definition of "land" for the purposes of the Act and the landowner had some area of that description. It is also not denied that the appellants were inducted as tenants on the land of the landowners after 15/4/1953 and therefore, on the date of the commencement of the Act, they had no status as that of the tenants. The only arena of dispute is that after those fallow landshad been brought under cultivation, could such change bring about an acquisition to the existing holding of the landowner when those lands were already owned by him. S. 19-A and 19-B of the Act, so far as relevant, are reproduced hereafter: