CHANCHAL SINGH Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Chanchal Singh and his two brothers Sohan Singh and Avtar Singh in this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India have moved this Court to quash the order passed by the learned Financial Commissioner in the exercise of his revisional jurisdiction granting the application of the second and third respondents Abdul Latif and Abdul Aziz for the conferment of proprietrary rights in respect of 15 bighas and 9 marlas of land in their tenancy.

(2.) Joginder Singh, father of the petitioners, was allotted the disputed land situated in Malerkotla of Sangrur District on 21st of June, 1951. The, second and third respondents, who are brothers and who had been tenant of this land, applied under Section 22 of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955 (hereinafter called the Act) for the acquisition of proprietary rights in the disputed land whose area is 15 bighas and 9 biswas, that is to say 3-1/2 standard acres. The application was granted and the respondents were granted proprietary rights on payment of Rs. 618.35 P. at the rate of Rs. 200/- per standard acre on 19th of January, 1961. In the appeal preferred by Joginder Singh against this order of the Prescribed Authority, the Collector of Sangrur holding that the respondents were not entitled to the grant of proprietary rights made an order on 16th of February, 1962, allowing the appeal and rejecting the application of the tenant-respondents. The learned Financial Commissioner in revision, however, restored the order of the Prescribed Authority passed on 19th of January, 1961 and the petitioners as the legal representatives of Joginder Singh have sought the intervention of this Court in certiorari proceedings under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) It is contended in the first place by Mr. Narula, the learned counsel for the petitioners that the land having once been evacuee property, the provisions of the Act are not applicable to it. The aid of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 51 of the Act is sought in this connection. It is provided in this clause that the provisions of the Act shall not apply to "lands vested in the Central Government which have not been transferred to an allottee either on permanent or quasi-permanent basis". The argument of the learned counsel has no force as the land which was at first allotted on a quasi-permanent basis to Joginder Singh had been allotted on a permanent basis to him. The land does not, therefore, belong to Central Government having been transferred to the father of the petitioners on a permanant basis in 1956. It is worthy of note that even the land transferred on quasi-permanent basis is attracted by the provisions in Asa Nand v. Madho Singh and another,1964 PunLR 522 the applicability of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955, is excluded only in respect of lands which are either owned by or vest in the State or the Central Government. After the land has been transferred to an allottee it ceased to be owned by the State or Central Government and consequently ceased to vest in it. Clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 51 mentions specifically that the exception is made only in respect of land vested in the Central Government and not transferred to an allottee either on permanent or quasi-permanent basis.