KRISHAN KUMAR Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Durga Dass, predecessor-in-interest of the appellants, was a big landowner in village Rasulpura Brahamana, Tehsil and District Jalandhar. His land measuring 8.5 Standard Acres was declared surplus, out of which the land in dispute was allotted to Mangal as a tenant. Mangal having died, his sons (respondent Nos. 4 to 7) filed an application for the purchase of the land under Section 18 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (hereinafter 'the Act'). The Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Jullundur, allowed the tenants to purchase the land vide order dated March 24, 1972. Durga Dass died, leaving his widow Ram Piari and daughter Janki Devi. They filed an appeal against the order of the Assistant Collector Ist Grade dated March 24, 1972, which was dismissed by the Collector, Jullundur, vide order dated April 30, 1974 (P.2). Ram Piari and Janki Devi then filed a revision which was dismissed by the Financial Commissioner vide order dated September 2, 1976 (P.3). They assailed the orders of the Assistant Collector, Collector and the Financial Commissioner in C.W.P. No. 4088 of 1977 which was dismissed vide order dated May 22, 1980. It is under these circumstances that the appellants have filed the present letters patent appeal.

(2.) On July 25, 1984, the learned counsel for the private respondents did not put in appearance and the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant were heard. It was pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants that the surplus area with Durga Dass to the extent of 8.5 Standard Acres was declared on June 28, 1960, and he died on May 9, 1961, survived by his widow Ram Piari and daughter Janki Devi. The surplus land of Durga Dass was allotted to Mangal, predecessor-in-interest of the private respondents on October 26, 1961, as he was given the possession thereof in 1963. Durga Dass having died on May 9, 1961, his legal heirs (Ram Piari widow and Janki Devi daughter) became small landowners on the date the disputed land was allotted to Mangal. Under these circumstances, the land in dispute could not be allowed to be purchased under Section 18 of the Act.

(3.) In the absence of the learned counsel for the private respondents, we felt impressed by the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants and ordered that the case be decided afresh by the Assistant Collector after hearing the appellants on the point pressed before us.