CHATTER SINGH AND ANR Vs. BEHARI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts leading to this second appeal are that the present respondent Behari Lal had filed this suit against the present appellants respondent that he was a tenant on the suit land under defendant No. 1 Chatter Singh, who was a displaced person. The total holdings of Chatter Singh on 15th April, 1953, from which date the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (for short the Act) came into force, was 39 standard acres and 15 units as owner and 12 standard acres and 8 units as mortgagee with possession. Thus Chatter Singh was a big landowner. He did not exercise his option under the Act to reserve the area for self-cultivation with in the specified time and as such he was not entitled to retain more than 10 standard acres for self-cultivation and the remaining was to be declared as surplus area. Any transfer effected, which had the effect of diminishing the area of the landowner, was contrary to the provision of the Act and was void. Chatter Singh allowed mortgage to be redeemed. The redemption was void. Moreover, it amounted to transfer of land and had to be ignored. Chatter Singh allowed also transferred some land to his son Onkar (defendant No. 2). That transfer was also bad. The plaintiff filed application under Section 18 of the Act for purchasing the land under his occupancy. Onkar Singh also filed an application for ejectment of the plaintiff. The plaintiff's application for purchase fo the land was dismissed. Ejectment application filed by Onkar Singh against the plaintiff was allowed. The plaintiff filed appeals in both the cases but the Collector vide orders dated 29h October, 1969 dismissed both the appeals. In this suit the plaintiff prayed for a declaration that at the suit land was surplus area of Chatter Singh and the above orders of the Collector were bad in law.

(2.) The learned counsel for the appellants argued that the plaintiff-respondent is challenging the order dated 29th October, 1969 passed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, which was confirmed in appeal vide order Exhibit P. 9 by the Collector, by which his purchase application filed by him under Section 18 of the Act was rejected. He argued that a tenant can be allowed to purchase land under that provisions only if the conditions laid down therein are satisfied. He referred to Section 18(1) of the Act, the relevant portion of which reads as follows:-

(3.) Reference can also made to Bhanti Devi v. The Financial Commissione, Haryana and others,1981 RLR 323, wherein it was remarked:-