CHANDER BHAN Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONERHARYANACHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether a tenant statutorily re-settled on agricultural land comprised in the surplus area of the original big landowner is to be fictionally deemed to become the tenant of such a landowner, despite the fact that the land had been sold much earlier to a vendee who was a small landowner is the somewhat intricate question which has necessitated this reference to the Full Bench. Even more pointedly at issue is the correctness of the view in Jagdish and Santu v. State of Haryana, 1980 Punj LJ 398 and its discordance with the earlier Full Bench in Chandi Ram V. State of Punjab, 1974 Punj LJ 251 : (AIR 1974 Punj 243).

(2.) The issue aforesaid is the common link in these three writ petitions and specifically arises in the context of the tenant's right of statutory purchase under Section 18 of the Punjab Security of land Tenures Act (hereinafter called and Act). It suffices to refer to the facts in C. W. P. No. 32/1980 Chander Bhan v. Financial Commissioner, Haryana. Madan Gopal respondent No. 9 was a big landowner who had sold the land in dispute to respondents Nos. 2 to 8 vide registered sale deed executed way back on the 30th of October, 1958. Later this area measuring 3 acres comprised in Killa Nos. 11, 12 and 14 of rectangle No. 9 situated at village Sewari was declared surplus in the hands of Madan Gopal respondent in the year 1961. It calls for pointed mention that the sale by Madan Gopal in favour of respondents Nos. 2 to 8 who admittedly were small landowners was ignored for purpose of the determination of his surplus area by virtue of the provisions of Section 10-A of the Act, Chander Bhan petitioner who was an ejected tenant was re-settled on the aforesaid surplus area in accordance with the utilisation scheme and its possession was delivered to him on the 12th of June, 1964. On the completion of six years of his tenancy he preferred an application under Section 18 of the Act to the Prescribed Authority for its purchase. This application was dismissed by the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Gurgaon (the Prescribed Authority) by his order dated the 11th December, 1972, primarily on the ground that the transferees of Madan Gopal (who stood recorded as owners in revenue record) were small landowners and, therefore, the applicant did not satisfy the pre-condition of being the tenant of a big landowner prescribed by Section 18. The dismissal of the application was upheld in appeal by the Commissioner and in revision by the Financial Commissioner. He has then filed the present writ petition for quashing the impugned orders of the revenue authorities. The connected C. W. P. No. 33 of 1980 has been preferred by Jai Parshad another tenant of Madan Gopal whose application for statutory purchase of land over which he was re-settled as ejected tenant was dismissed on similar grounds.

(3.) C. W. P. No. 2438 of 1980 Ram Singh and others v. F. C. Haryana--presents the reverse situation. Therein the application under Section 18 of the Act of Ram Sarup, a re-settled tenant on the surplus land of Madan Gopal was allowed at the revisional stage in accordance with Jagdish and Santu's case (1980 Punj LJ 398). The transferees of Madan Gopal have preferred this writ petition for quashing the order of the Financial Commissioner.