JAIDEV SINGH Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition challenges the order passed by the authorities under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (for short, Rs. ' 1953 Act') rejecting a plea by the petitioners who claimed to be the heirs of Nahar Singh to eject the tenant in possession on a contention that he had no right to secure proprietary rights under Section 18 of the 1953 Act. Some more facts are necessary to understand the points canvassed by the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. The properties were declared as surplus in the year 1960 and the property was allotted to the respondent as a tenant. The original landlord complained that there had been default in payment of rent by the tenant and applied for ejectment for non-payment under Section 9 of the Act. The landlord himself had died on 15.04.1970 and the tenant applied under Section 18 on 10.09.1971 to purchase the property. The recognition of the right granted under the statute.

(2.) The landlord had two contentions to make: (i) the property was not utilized so long as the right under Section 18 was not completed, transferring the proprietary rights to the tenant; (ii) if there had been no full utilization, the death of the landlord would operate to create succession of right to the legal heirs and the legal heirs would be entitled to redetermination of the holding in their hands. In such an eventuality, the allotment already made would stand reverted to the legal heirs if the holding in the hands of the legal heirs cannot exceed the surplus.

(3.) The learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners would refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in Financial Commissioner, Haryana and others v. Smt. Kela Devi and another, 1980 PunLJ 121, that examined the expression "utilization" occurring under Section 4 of the Act. The Supreme Court held that mere allotment of the property was only the initial stage in the process of utilization of surplus area and did not complete that process. For completion of process, there was a necessity for an allottee to (i) obtain a certificate of allotment; (ii) take possession of the land within period specified; (iii) execute qabuliat or patta in respect of land. If only the utilization was complete and when the possession of surplus area had been taken by an allottee and other formalities were completed, the tenant would obtain a full proprietary right and if not, such a right was always defeasible, if other conditions prescribed by law had not been fulfilled. The Supreme Court was examining it in the context of the further consequence of the death of landowner and the survival of interest to heirs by inheritance. Any such succession operating to the heirs, the Supreme Court held inheritance affected utilization of surplus area if order made for utilization was not fully implemented.