BAL RAM Vs. SANWAL RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of CIvil Writ Petition Nos. 231 and 290 to 300 of 1969. In all these petitions common questions of law and fact arise and, therefore, they have been decided by one order. The petitioners are landlords and respondent No. 1 in each of these petitions is a tenant. The tenant made an application under Section 18 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 for purchase of the land. A preliminary objection was raised in these applications before the relevant authority that as the tenant was not a tenant of the land for a period of 6 years on the date when the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 came into force i.e. on the 15th April, 1953 the tenant could not make the application under Section 18 of that Act. The position taken up by the tenants was that they were tenants of the land for a period of 6 years at the time of application, and therefore, they could make the applications and were entitled to the benefit conferred by Section 18.

(2.) Against the order of the relevant authority rejecting the preliminary objections of the landowner, the present petitions have been preferred in this Court. Two contentions have been advanced before us in these petitions. The first contention is that the relevant date on which the period of 6 years has to be reckoned under Section 18 is the 15th April, 1953 and not the date of the application. The second contention is that the compensation allowed by Section 18 to the landowners, whose land is sought to be purchased is illusory and is not just compensation and that the method adopted to arrive at the compensation is not relevant for the purpose of arriving at a just compensation.

(3.) It is not conceded that in view of the Supreme Court decision in Sahib Ram etc. v. The Financial Commissioner, Punjab and others, and Lachhmi Narain and others v. The Financial Commissioner, Punjab and others, C.A. Nos. 2356 & 2357 of 1966, decided on the 23rd February, 1970 (1970 P.L.J. 282), the first contention stands concluded. It has been held by the Supreme Court :-