BALWANT RAM Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Civil Writ Petition No. 318 of 1972 (Balwant Ram V. The Financial Commissioner, Punjab and others) and Civil Writ Petition No. 361 of 1972 (Kulwant Ram deceased represented by Gurdev Ram and others V. The Financial Commissioner, Punjab and others) will be disposed of vide this common judgment as common questions of law and facts are involved in them.

(2.) Balwant Ram and Kulwant Ram were tenants of Mahant Bhan Singh chela Mahat Chanan Singh, resident of village Harike Kalan, Tehsil Muktsar, District Ferozepur. Being old tenants they filed applications under Section 18 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on December 18, 1968, for purchase of the lands comprised in their respective tenancies. They pleaded in these applications that the lands sought to be purchased were not included in the reserved area of Mahant Bhan Singh, they had been cultivating the lands for the last more than 6 years and as such they were entitled to purchase these lands. The landowner contested these applications on the ground that the tenants had not been in occupation of the land in dispute for a period of six years; the land belonged to the Dera and not to the Mahant and the land in dispute had been reserved by the landowner. The Assistant Collector framed the following four issues :-

(3.) Dissatisfied with the orders of the Assistant Collector dismissing their purchase applications and allowing the applications for ejectment filed by the landowner, the petitioner-tenants filed appeals to the Collector. The Collector dismissed the appeals of the purchase cases, holding that since the tenants had been ordered to be ejected the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties had been snapped and the tenants had no locus standi to make the purchase applications. He also observed that even if the purchase applications had been allowed and later the tenants had been ordered to be ejected, though on the same day, the tenants still shall not be entitled to purchase the land in dispute. However, the Collector did not affirm the findings of the Assistant Collector that the purchase applications have to be dismissed because the surplus area case of the landowner had not been decided till then. The Collector also dismissed the appeals in the ejectment proceedings.