BABU RAM Vs. CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The undisputed facts are that one Sansar Singh son of Sharam Singh was allotted evacuee agricultural land in village Dala Goria, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur, by the Rehabilitation Department. The petitioner, Babu Ram, obtained the said land on lease from Sansar Singh in 1952/1953 and was in its possession as a tenant on April 1, 1960, when Sansar Singh sold the land to respondent No. 4 for Rs. 2000/-. The area of the land was 20 Kanals 19 Marlas and was comprised in Killa Nos. 47/6/1, 15/2, 48/10, 11, 12/1 and 186. The petitioner, as a tenant of the vendor on the land, filed a suit for pre-emption and a decree was passed in his favour by the Senior Subordinate Judge, Gurdaspur, on October 16, 1960, in respect of land measuring 11 Kanals 14 Marlas comprised in Killa Nos. 48/12/1, 11, 47/15/2 and 186. The petitioner paid Rs. 1040/- on account of proportionate price of the land successfully pre-empted and a mutation in pursuance of the decree in his favour was sanctioned and incorporated in the revenue papers by the revenue authorities. Respondent No. 4 evidently withdrew the amount from the Court which had been deposited by the petitioner.

(2.) The Naib Tehsildar (Sales)-cum-Managing Officer received an order vide U.O. No. 4534/39, dated June 2, 1967, to the effect that the allotment of land in favour of Sansar Singh, allottee, had been cancelled. Under some kind of departmental instructions, the cancelled land could be sold to the bona fide vendees and taking advantage of those instructions, respondent No. 4 obtained an order of re-sale of the entire land in her favour on March 18, 1968, from the Naib Tehsildar (Sales)-cum-Managing Officer, Gurdaspur, for Rs. 1425/-. The petitioner was not aware of the proceedings for the purchase of that land by respondent No. 4 nor was any notice issued to him, in spite of the fact that he had obtained the pre-emption decree and mutation of 11 Kanals 14 Marlas of land had been sanctioned in his favour. The sale certificate was issued to respondent No. 4 two days later and, on the strength of that certificate, she wanted to sell the land to some intending purchasers. It was in these circumstances that the petitioner came to know about the purchase of the entire land by respondent No. 4 from the Rehabilitation Department. The petitioner then filed an appeal before the Settlement Commissioner, who accepted the same on June 26. 1968, and remanded the case to the Tehsildar (Sales)-cum-Managing Officer, Gurdaspur, for fresh decision with a direction that the cancelled land should be sold to the petitioner to the extent of 11 Kanals 14 Marlas and to respondent No. 4 to the extent of 9 Kanals 5 Marlas. The penal rent and the price recovered from respondent No. 4 over and above her share was directed to be refunded to her and the parties were directed to appear before the Tehsildar (Sales)-cum-Managing Officer, Gurdaspur, on July 15, 1968. Against that order, respondent No. 4 filed, a revision petition which was accepted by the Chief Settlement Commissioner on August 27, 1969. The order of the Settlement Commissioner was set aside and the order of the Naib-Tehsildar (Sales)-cum-Managing Officer was restored. The petitioner then filed the present petition for the quashing of the order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner. Written statement has been filed by respondent No. 4, to which the petitioner has filed his replication.

(3.) The short submission on behalf of the petitioner is that the right of pre-emption is not a right of repurchase either from the vendor or from the vendee involving any new contract of sale; but it is simply a right of substitution entitling the pre-emptor by reason of a legal incident, to which the sale itself was subject, to stand in the shoes of the vendee in respect of all the rights and obligations arising from the sale under which he has derived his title. This proposition is not contested by the learned counsel for respondent No. 4, but he submits that the purchase of the land by respondent No. 4 from the Naib Tehsildar (Sales)-cum-Managing Officer, Gurdaspur, on March 18, 1968, for Rs. 1425/- was not subject to any pre-emption as she had purchased the land from the Government, and the mere fact that the previous sale in her favour had been successfully pre-empted to the extent of 11 Kanals 14 Marlas by the petitioner, did not entitle him to purchase the corresponding area of that land from the Government. It is also submitted by the learned counsel that the right of purchase given to the bona fide vendee from an allottee, the allotment in whose favour was cancelled, under the departmental instructions or press notes, did not per se create any legal right in the petitioner and, therefore, he cannot maintain the present petition.