PURAN SINGH Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In order to appreciate the contentions raised in this petition, some relevant dates and facts may be stated. In 1947/1948, Hardyal Singh, Atma Ram and Ranjit Singh, sons of Harchand, mortgaged some land with possession to Nand Kaur, widow of one Sher Singh and to some other persons. In 1951, Puran Singh, the present petitioner, was inducted as a tenant by some of the mortgagees on about 36 bighas and 3 biswas in village Ratta Khera, tehsil Sirsa, district Hissar. On the 31st of May, 1958, the mortgage was redeemed and the mortgagors took possession of the land. On the 20th of June, 1958, Hardyal Singh, the mortgagor-owner, sold the redeemed land to Pritam Singh, who is respondent No. 2 before me. On the 1st of August, 1958 Puran Singh, the petitioner, made an application under Section 18(2) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, hereinafter referred to as the Act, for the purchase of the land, of which he claimed to be the tenant. On the 13th of August, 1960, the Assistant Collector granted the application by fixing the price of the land to be Rs. 4,390/42 paise to be paid by Puran Singh petitioner to Pritam Singh vendee in 10 equal six-monthly instalments of Rs. 439/04 paise each. Six instalments have already been paid and only four remain to be paid. Pritam Singh went up in appeal and the Collector, Hissar, dismissed the same on the 13th of April, 1961. A further revision was also dismissed by the Commissioner, Ambala Division on the 31st of October, 1961.

(2.) Pritam Singh, however, filed a revision before the Financial Commissioner, who accepted the revision by the impugned order, dated the 16th of July, 1963. Consequently, the Financial Commissioner dismissed the application of Puran Singh for the purchase of land.

(3.) The Assistant Collector while accepting the application of the present petitioner had held that since the mortgagees were big landowners and since the present petitioner was a tenant under the mortgagees, any transfer or disposition effected after the 1st of February, 1935, could not affect his rights according to the provisions of Section 16 of the Act. He further held that the redemption of the mortgage on the 31st of May, 1958, and the subsequent sale in favour of the petitioner could not defeat the rights of the petitioner-tenant. This reasoning appears to have been adopted both by the Collector and the Commissioner while dismissing the appeal and revision of respondent No. 2.