BARKAT Vs. F C

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioners through two different but similar applications under Section 18 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), sought the purchase of the land in dispute on the ground that they had completed six years of their tenancy over this land prior to the date of the filing of the applications on June 30, 1965. It is the admitted position that initially this land belonged to Mr. Gursharan Singh Bedi, a big landowner and Respondents 4 to 9 (hereinafter called the Respondents) against whom the applications were made by the Petitioners, were successor in-interest of that big landowner. The Assistant Collector 1st Grade vide his orders Annexures P. 1 and P. 2 dated March 31, 1971, accepted this claim of the Petitioners and allowed the purchase of the lard in question. The Respondents preferred two appeals against the order of the Assistant Collector and the same were dismissed by the Collector vide his two identical orders on June 21,1972. The Respondents again preferred two separate revision petition before the Commissioner who recommended the same to the Financial Commissioner, Revenue, for the acceptance of the same for the solitary reason that the Petitioners had failed to establish the starting of their tenancy prior to April 15,1953. For this view, the Commissioner depended on a judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab now Haryana and Ors. V/s. Amar Singh and Anr., 1974 PunLJ 74. According to the Commissioner, the ratio of this judgment is that unless a tenant is able to establish the advent of his tenancy prior to the coming into force of the Act, that is, April 15, 1953, he is not entitled to purchase the land under his tenancy. The Financial Commissioner however, did not accept this interpretation of the judgment of the Supreme Court by the Commissioner and held that the ratio of the judgment was not that the tenancy of a tenant in all such cases before he is allowed to purchase the land under him should begin some time prior to April 15, 1953 and according to him, that pronouncement of their Lordships was made in the context of the facts established in that case. He rather placed reliance on another judgment of the Supreme Court in Saheb Ram etc. V/s. Financial Commissioner Chandigarh and Ors., 1971 AIR(SC) 198 wherein the precise question now in dispute was considered. In this case this what has been ruled by the Supreme Court.

(2.) The solitary submission of Mr. U.S. Sahni, learned Counsel for the Petitioners, is that the Financial Commissioner in spite of the fact that he had come to the conclusion that as per the above noted judgment of the Supreme Court in Saheb Ram's case, it is nowhere required that a tenant before he can purchase the land under his tenancy must start as a tenant prior to April 15, 1953, has still chosen to remand the case without any justifiable reason The learned Counsel pointed out that no finding of fact any of the subordinate authorities has been upset or doubted by the Financial Commissioner. It has been rather accepted by him that the tenancy of Petitioners started in the year 1956 and they had completed more six years as such when they filed the applications under Section 18 of the Act in the year 1964. After going through the impugned order I find that the submissions of the learned Counsel are full of merit.

(3.) Mr. J.S. Virk, learned Counsel for the Respondents says that the Financial Commissioner has remanded the case for the reason that since there was a dispute between the parties with regard to the date of commencement of the tenancy of the Petitioners, he has directed the Commissioner to recombine the merits of the case in the light of the two judgments of the Supreme Court noted above. Merely that the Respondents chose to contest the findings recorded by the sub-ordinate revenue authories to the effect that the tenancy of the Petitioners had started in the year 1956 without anything more, could not possibly be a reason for remand of the case by the Financial Commissioner, more so in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction Even now no reference has been made to any evidence which could possibly lead to the conclusion or at least inference that a finding to the effect that the tenancy of the Petitioners had started in the year 1956 could be doubted. As in clear from the reading of the impugned order, the solitary ground on the basis of which recommendation had been made to him by the Commissioner and had been considered by him was as to whether in the light of the Supreme Court judgment in Amar Singh's case the Petitioners could be held entitled to the purchase of the land under their tenancy? After examining that judgment he has come to a definite conclusion that the said judgment does not in any manner disentitle the Petitioners to purchase this land. In this view of the matter there was nothing further which required to be gone into by the Commissioner. The learned Counsel for the Respondents further maintains hat the observation made by the Financial Commissioner to the effect that the Supreme Court judgment in Amar Singh's case does not lay down that the tenancy of the tenant before he can purchase the land under his tenancy must start from some time earlier to April 15, 1953 is wrong. I had the occasion to consider the import and implication of the judgment of the supreme Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 469 of 1980 Banwari V/s. The Commissioner Ambala Division and Ors. decided on September 24 1980 where in I came to a positive conclusion that this pronouncement of the Supreme Court was based on its own facts, that is it dealt with cases where the order of purchase made in favour of the tenants was found to be collusive by the revenue authorities. Further it is clear from the reading of this judgment that the earlier judgment of the Supreme Court in Saheb Ram's case which though was noticed yet was not dissented or departed from. That judgment squarely deals with the matter now in controversy. Therefore, 1 do not find any substance in this submission of the learned Counsel.