BHOPAL Vs. THAKUR JATINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal has been filed by defendant No. 1 against the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, Hissar dated 30th November, 1974.

(2.) Briefly the facts are that the plaintiff was a big landowner. He was owner of the land in dispute. Defendant No. 1 was his tenant. Defendant No. 1 filed an application under section 18 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 before the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Fatehabad for purchasing the land. The application was allowed by him vide order dated 11th August, 1969. It is averred that the said order is illegal, void and without jurisdiction for the reason that Bhopal defendant No. 1 was not a tenant on the land for six years and that the land was under the possession of Forest Department. Consequently he sought a declaration that the order of the Assistant Collector was illegal, void and ineffective. It is also alleged that defendant No. 1 sold some land in favour of defendants Nos. 2 to 4.

(3.) The main question that arises for determination is whether the impugned order is void. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the order was challenged by the plaintiff-respondent on two grounds, namely, that the appellant did not remain in possession of the land for 6 years and that the land was taken possession of by the Forest Department and it was released in the year 1965. However, the Additional District Judge held the order to be void on the grounds firstly, that the date of institution of the application under section 18 was not known and, therefore, it could not be held that the appellant remained in possession of the land as tenant for more than 6 years, secondly, the surplus area case of the plaintiff-respondent had not been decided and thirdly, that the land was taken possession of by the Forest Department vide notification, Exhibit P.1, that it remained in their possession upto the year 1965 and, therefore, the appellant did not remain as tenant for 6 years. On the other hand, Mr. Nehra, learned counsel for the respondent, has vehemently argued that in an application under section 18 it was the duty of the appellant to prove that he remained tenant for a period of 6 years and that the land sought to be purchased was not reserved area of the respondent. He submits that the appellant failed to prove the ingredients.