CHANDI RAM Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHEN this petition was admitted, the Admitting Bench directed that the papers of the case may be laid before the learned Chief Justice for constituting a Full bench as some portion of the decision in Ganpat v. Jagmal, (1963) 65 Pun LR 652, had to be considered. That is how, this petition has been placed before us.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to this petition are as follows: "the land in dispute belonged to Munshi Ram. Munshi Ram made an oral gift of the same to his three sons, Harbans Lal, Mathra Dass and Kewal Krishan, on the 16th of March, 1952. Before the mutation could be attested, the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act punjab Act 10 of 1953, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) came into force with effect from 15th April, 1953. The mutation of the oral gift was sanctioned on 7th october, 1953. On 11th of January, 1967, Chandi Ram, the present petitioner, filed three applications for purchase of the land which had been gifted by Munshi ram to his three sons under Section 18 of the Act. Three applications were necessitated because there were three donees. These applications were made to the Assistant Collector. On the 6th September, 1967, Harbans Lal, Mathra Dass and Kewala Krishan field ejectment petitions against Chandi Ram pleading that they were small landowners and needed the land for self-cultivation. On the 28th march, 1969, the tenant's applications under Section 18 of the Act were allowed and the ejectment applications of the landowners were dismissed. The landowners then moved the Collector in appeal but without success. Thereafter, a revision petition was preferred to the Commissioner, Jullundur Division and that too was rejected by the Commissioner. Ultimately, a further revision was preferred before the Financial Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner allowed the same on 28th of July, 1971. His order is Annexure 'd' and that is the order which has been impugned in the present proceedings under Articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of India.

(3.) AT no stage during the proceedings under Section 18 of the Act, it was contended that the petitioner-tenant was in possession of the land at the date when the transfers, that is, the gifts, were made. The only contention was that the petitioner-tenant was in possession of the land for a period of six years at the date of the applications. The Financial Commissioner proceeded to decide the revision petition on the admitted basis that the petitioner-tenant was not in possession of the land as a tenant under Munshi Ram, but that he was a tenant under the donee-transferees from Munshi Ram. No attempt was made either at the hearing before the Financial Commissioner of thereafter that the petitioner-tenant had been under a misapprehension and, therefore, he did not either allege or, prove that he was a tenant on the land before or at the transfer made my Munshi Ram. It is after the petition had been admitted that on the 3rd of September, 1971 an application was made under Order 41, Rule 27, read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for permission to place Khasra Girdawaris and other revenue papers on the file of the case in the interest of justice. This application was rejected by the Division Bench on 11th November, 1971. The only documents filed with the application were the Khasra Girdawari entries wherein for the first time the petitioner is shown as a tenant in Kharif 1952, and thereafter. No Jamabandi entry was produced to show that the petitioner was in possession of the land as a tenant under Munshi Ram at the time when Munshi Ram transferred the same to his sons.