NOOR MOHD Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts relevant to this matter are that Noor Mohammad, the petitioner in the Writ Petition referred to above and Nasib Khan, the petitioner in Civil Writ Petition No.503 of 1977 held land as tenants under Smt. Parbati. On June 6, 1964 the land held by them was declared to be part of the surplus area of the said Smt. Parbati under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). This order was, however, set aside on appeal by the Commissioner, Ambala Division on September 9, 1964. A fresh order regarding the declaration of surplus area of Smt. Parbati was then passed by the Collector on May 11, 1967. This again was set aside by the Commissioner, Ambala Division on appeal on December 10, 1968. Ultimately, on August 6, 1969, the Collector Palwal passed the order (Annexure R-3) whereby some land owned by Smt. Parbati was declared surplus. According to this order, the land held by the two petitioners Noor Mohammad and Nasib Khan was, however, included in the permissible area of Smt. Parbati.

(2.) It is well settled that a tenant cannot under Section 18 of the Act purchase land comprised in the permissible area of a big landowner. Conceding this proposition of law, the point sought to be urged by Mr. R.N. Narula, counsel for the petitioners was that the relevant date for determining the nature and character of the land held by a tenant for purposes of Section 18 of the Act was the date when the application was filed. On that date, he argued, the land held by the petitioners was surplus as it had been declared as such on June 6, 1964. He sought in this behalf to rely upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Rameshwar and others v. Jot Ram and another, 1975 PunLJ 454.

(3.) There is no merit in the contention raised and the authority sought to be relied upon cannot apply to the facts here. Rameshwar and others v. Jot Ram and another, was a case where an application for purchase of land under Section 18 of the Act had been filed by tenants of a big landowner. Purchase was sought of land which admittedly did not form part of the permissible area of the landowner. During the pendency of the appeal against the order allowing purchase of land held by the tenants, the landowner died and thereby his heirs became small landowners. It was sought to be contended that the tenants thereby became disentitled to purchase the land. It was on these set of facts that the Supreme Court held that the tenants who were competent to buy the land at the time they made the application under Section 18 of the Act could not be uprooted by the supervening circumstances. It was said that it was not permissible to project the landowner's subsequent death backwards to refuse a right already acquired.