SARDAR BAKHTAWAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition by Bakhtawar Singh for issuance of a writ of a certiorari quashing the orders of the Revenue authorities whereby they have allowed Niranjan Singh to purchase the land in dispute.

(2.) Gujjar Singh father of Bakhtawar Singh was a tenant on the surplus area of Jagjit Singh and others, who were big landowners. Niranjan Singh was a sub-tenant under Gujjar Singh on a part of this land Niranjan Singh filed an application for acquisition of proprietary rights in relation to 93 Kanals 18 Marlas of land belonging to Jagjit Singh and others Similarly, Bakhtawar Singh filed an application for conferment of proprietary rights in relation to 36 kanals 16 Marlas of land, over which his father Gujjar Singh was entered to be a tenant under the landowners. However, on this land. Niranjan Singh was recorded to be Sub-tenant under the landowners. However, on this land Niranjan Singh was recorded to be a sub-tenant under Gujjar Singh. The result was that Bakhtawar Singh and Niranjan Singh were both seeking conferment of proprietary rights on this parcel of land which measured 36 Kanals - 16 marlas of land. The Assistant Collector dismissed the claim of Niranjan Singh regarding this land. However, he conferred proprietary rights on him in respect of other lands regarding which Bakhtawar Singh has no dispute. Dissatisfied with this order of the Assistant Collector, Niranjan Singh filed an appeal before the Collector. The Collector came to the conclusion that Niranjan Singh was a sub-tenant under Gujjar Singh on the land in dispute, and as such in view of the provisions of Section 22(3) of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955 (hereinafter called the Pepsu Act') he was entitled to the conferment of the proprietary rights to the exclusion of Bakhtawar Singh. He also held that since Bakhtawar Singh was not cultivating the land he will not be deemed to be a successor of Gujjar Singh and as such, he was not entitled to purchase the land. Aggrieved by this order, Bakhtawar Singh filed a revision petition before the Financial Commissioner. The same was dismissed by him in limine on 1st of June, 1972. Dissatisfied with these orders, Bakhtawar Singh has filed the present writ petition.

(3.) Mr. V.P. Sarda, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has argued that Section 22 of the Pepsu Act has been enacted to confer rights of ownership on the tenants under big landowners. A sub-tenant can purchase land only if the tenant is not willing to do so. Since in the present case, Bakhtawar Singh as an heir of Gujjar Singh was anxious to purchase the land in dispute, Niranjan Singh had no right in the same. Bakhtawar Singh should have been conferred the proprietary rights. It will be useful at this stage to notice the provisions of Section 22 of the Pepsu Act.