RAM SINGH Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER PUNJAB ETC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a land-owner in village Kairu, Tehsil Bhiwani, District Hissar. Respondent No. 3 Ram Chand made an application in the year 1959 for purchase of land measuring 62 bighas 17 biswas comprised in Khasra No. 89 and 149 min. On the ground that he has been cultivating it for more than six years and that the landowner is a big landowner and thus he is entitled to purchase the same under Section 18 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act (hereinafter briefly called 'the Act'). This application was dismissed by the Assistant Collector, the tenant filed an appeal before the Collector and the case was remanded to the Assistant Collector for redetermining the issue. The Assistant Collector again dismissed the application of the tenant vide his order dated 29th December, 1960. An appeal was filed before the Commissioner, Ambala and the learned Commissioner vide his order dated 19th December, 1962, recommended the case to the Financial Commissioner for allowing the appeal of the tenant. The Financial Commissioner vide his order dated 30th April, 1963, remanded the case for fresh decision in the light of the amendments introduced in the Act by Punjab Act No. 14 of 1962. The learned Assistant Collector found that land measuring 9 bighas comprised in Khasra No. 149 min belonged to Lalji Singh and as his holding was 66 standard acres and thus the tenant was entitled to purchase the same under Section 18 of the Act but he found that as regards land comprised in Khasra No. 89 measuring 53 bighas 17 biswas the owner of this land are sons of Umda Singh who are now small landowners and the tenant was not entitled to purchase the same. Again an appeal was preferred before the Collector who dismissed the same vide his order dated 4th January, 1965. Aggrieved against the order of the Collector, the tenant filed a revision petition before the Commissioner, Ambala, who recommended vide order dated 18th January, 1966 (Annexure 'F') the case to the Financial Commissioner for allowing the application of the tenant to purchase Khasra No. 89. The learned Financial Commissioner vide his order dated 30th April, 1966, allowed the revision petition (a copy of the order is annexed with the petition as Annexure 'G') and directed the Assistant Collector to determine the value of Khasra No. 89. It is against the orders of the Financial Commissioner and the Commissioner that the present writ has been filed.

(2.) The Financial Commissioner has drawn a distinction between the reserved area and the selected area. Admittedly, in this case the landowner did not make any reservation of the land but the area was selected subsequently under Section 5-B of the Act and the learned Financial Commissioner says that there is a clear distinction between reserved area and the area selected by a landowner under Section 5-B and thus he held that it is a reservation made under the former which cannot be purchased by tenant under Section 18 of the Act and that no protection is granted to an area which is selected under Section 5-B. This view of the learned Financial Commissioner is apparently wrong and illegal. By now it is settled that there is no distinction between the reserved area and the selected area under Section 5-B. In this view of the matter, the area which is selected cannot be purchased by the tenant under Section 18 of the Act. In this case, the order was passed on 30th April, 1966, and subsequently the Assistant Collector also determined the price of the land in dispute and the price was deposited. The operation of this order was not stayed by the Admitting Bench. The parties are in possession of the land. Since the order of the Financial Commissioner is patently illegal, therefore, it cannot be sustained.

(3.) For the foregoing reasons, I accept this petition and the orders of the Financial Commissioner (Annexure 'G') and of the Commissioner (Annexure 'F') are hereby quashed. In the circumstances of this case, I direct that the case be remanded to the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Bhiwani. As it is disputed whether the whole area of Khasra No. 89 is selected, the Assistant Collector will redecide the matter. If the whole area of Khasra No. 89 is selected by the landlord, then the tenants have no right to purchase but if some part of Khasra No. 89 is not selected then that portion of the land in Khasra No. 89 the tenant is entitled to purchase. The parties are directed to appear before the Assistant Collector on 5th May, 1975. This petition is disposed of accordingly.