NATHI Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order of mine would dispose of Civil Writ Nos. 3530 and 3531 of 1971, as common questions of law and fact arise in both these petitions, which have been filed by Smt. Nathi, landowner, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, calling in question the legality and propriety of the orders of the Assistant Collector, the Collector, the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner, dated 22nd January, 1970, 16th February, 1970, 4th May, 1970, and 6th August, 1971 (copies Annexures 'B', 'C', 'D' and 'E' to the petition) respectively.

(2.) The only point that has been agitated in both these petitions by Mr. M. L. Sarin, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the purchase application filed by the tenant-respondent should be kept in abeyance till the decision of the surplus area case. According to the learned counsel, the order of the Special Collector dated 3rd June, 1963, declaring the surplus area of the petitioner, was set aside by the Additional Commissioner, Jullundur Division, vide his order dated 13th February, 1969, that the permissible area of the petitioner is still to be determined and that in view of the law laid down by this Court in Jee Ram and others v. Gobind and others,1971 PunLJ 766, the decision in the purchase application has to be stayed. On the other hand it is contended by Mr. Prem Nath Aggarwal, learned counsel for the tenant-respondent, that the decision in Jee Ram's case does not apply to the facts of the case in hand, that in the instant case the landowner has reserved her area, that the tenant-respondent has not applied for the purchase of the area which is the reserved area of the landowner and that, in these circumstances, the question of staying the decision of the purchase application filed by the tenant does not arise.

(3.) So far as the facts are concerned, there is no dispute. The surplus area case of the petitioner was originally decided by the Special Collector on 3rd June, 1963. On appeal filed by certain tenants that order was set aside by the Additional Commissioner, Jullundur Division, vide his order dated 13th February, 1969 and the case was remanded to the Special Collector, Punjab, with the direction that the same may be decided on merits, after hearing the tenants and other interested person. It seems that while the appeal was pending before the Additional Commissioner, Jullundur, the tenant-respondent filed an application under Section 18 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), for the purchase of the land under his tenancy. The application had not been decided when the remand order was passed and thereafter an objection was raised by the petitioner that the purchase application was not maintainable. The objection was overruled by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade vide his order dated 22nd January, 1970 (copy Annexure 'B' to the petition). The appeal before the Collector and the revisions before the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner filed by the landowner, also did not succeed. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner has approached this Court.