RAJINDER KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether the claim of a tenant under Section 18 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 18 of 1953 (hereinafter called the Act), can be defeated by the death of the original landowner, after the filing of the petition under Section 18 and before the decision of the same by the Assistant Collector, because of the consequent inheritance of the estate of the original owner by his heirs, who are admittedly small landowners though the land had been transferred by the original owner before his death to third persons, which sale is found by authorities to be collusive" is the question that calls for decision in this writ petition. The facts leading to the filing of this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution may first be surveyed. Late Shri Kulwant Rai (hereinafter referred as the original landowner) was a landowner, who as not a small landowner within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act, because his entire land in the State of Punjab far exceeded the "permissible area" as defined in sub-section (3) of Section 2 of the Act. The original landowner transferred a part of his holding consisting of field Nos. 71 and 73 to Madan Lal petitioner No. 2, and his remaining holding in favour of Rajinder Kumar, petitioner No. 1, in April, 1955. The mutations in respect of the said transfers were sanctioned on March 30, 1956. Harditta Ram (original respondent No. 4) made an application under Section 18(2) of the Act on January 16, 1960 to the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Muktsar (Respondent No. 3), for purchasing 49 bighas and 15 Biswas of land, which had been acquired by the petitioners including field Nos. 71 and 73 referred to above. This entire land was situated in village Sappanwali, tehsil Fazilka, district Ferozepore. Claim for the purchase was made on the ground contained in clause (i) of sub-section (1) of Section 18, that is, on the averment that the original owner was not a small landowner and that Harditta Ram had been in continuous occupation of the land (claimed by him) in his tenancy for more than six years prior to the making of his application. During the pendency of the tenant's application, the original owner died on August 22, 1960. On their application, the legal representatives of the original owner were impleaded as parties to the case by the order of the Assistant Collector, dated November 8, 1960. The petitioners had also been impleaded as respondents to the tenant's application. They contested the tenant's claim under Section 18 on, inter alia, the ground that the joint application against two different owners, the petitioners in the writ case, was not maintainable, that the petitioners were small landowners, that the tenant had not completed six years as a tenant on the land in dispute till April 15, 1953, and that the land in question formed part of the selected area of the landowner. Faced with the objection regarding one joint application having been made by the tenant against the two petitioners, a statement was made by the tenant before the Assistant Collector on December 22, 1960 (Annexure 'A') to the effect that he would make a separate application against Madan Lal and that in the application which he had already filed, proceedings may be taken, only against Rajinder Kumar, and the tenant may be permitted to amend the application as he would file a separate one against Madan Lal. On that statement of the tenant, the Collector passed an order (which has been read out by the parties from the original record) on that very day (22-12-1960) to the effect that during the course of arguments, the tenant had withdrawn his claim to field Nos. 71 and 73 to avoid the objection about his application being ill-constituted.

(2.) By order, dated February 23, 1961 (Annexure 'B') the Assistant Collector suo motu deleted the names of legal representatives of the original landowner from the proceedings under Section 18 of the Act, on the ground that the transfer in favour of the petitioners was subsequent to February 1, 1955, and the legal representatives aforesaid had got no connection with the case. He further held in the same order that field Nos. 71 and 73 had been found to form part of the reserved area which would, therefore, be excluded from the purview of the tenant's pending application. The tenant's application under Section 18, was ultimately disposed of by the order of respondent No. 3, dated May 18, 1961 (Annexure U), whereby the objection against the maintainability of a joint application against both the petitioners was overruled and the entire claim of the original tenant was allowed in respect of 30 standard acres of, land belonging to petitioner No. 1 and 6 acres 4 kanals and 10 Marlas of nehri land belonging to Madan Lal, petitioner No 2. The price obtaining for similar land in the locality during the preceding ten years was worked out at Rs. 1227.84 per acre and the concessional price at Rs. 920.88 per acre. An aggregate sum of Rs. 20252.25 was directed to be paid to the petitioners in instalments. Not satisfied with the order of the Assistant Collector, the petitioners preferred an appeal against the same to the Collector, Ferozepore (Annexure 'D'), which was rejected by the latter's order, dated August 3 1, 1961 (Annexure 'E'), on the ground that though there was some force in the objection of mis-joinder of parties raised by the petitioners, he did not think it necessary to reverse the order on that ground in view of the summary nature of the proceedings and that the status of the petitioners as alleged small landowner was not relevant as the status of the person who was owner in the year 1953, had to be taken into account when the entire land admittedly belonged to Kulwant Rai, who according to the statement of the Patwari and copy of the jambandi was a big landowner. It was held that it was the status of the original landowners alone which could be considered so far as the interest of the tenant was concerned.

(3.) The petitioner then went up in revision (Annexure 'F') to the Commissioner. In the meantime, by order, dated July 17, 1961, the Collector held all the legal representatives of the original landowner to be small landowners. The revisional authority, that is the Commissioner, by his order, dated June 18. 1962 (Annexure 'G') partially recommended the case for acceptance to the Financial Commissioner in so far as the order under Section 18 of the Act had been passed against Madan Lal petitioner. The learned Commissioner held that after the tenant had made a statement giving up his claim against Madan Lal, the Assistant Collector had no jurisdiction to treat the tenant's application as one for purchase of Madan Lal's land. On that basis he held that the order of the Assistant Collector and that of the Collector on appeal in respect of Madan Lal's land, were without jurisdiction. He recommended to the Financial Commissioner to set aside the order to that extent. He further held that though the land was in the hands of the transferees, it would continue to be treated as the land of the original transferor and not that of his heirs and that the transfer in any case appeared to him to be collusive. Regarding the assessment of the price of the land, he held that the two sales in favour of the petitioners had been rightly ignored as the said transfers were prima facie collusive. No interference was called for, according to the Commissioner, in the orders of the Assistant Collector in so far as the case related to the purchase of property of Rajinder Kumar petitioner No. 1. When however, the matter reached the Financial Commissioner, he did not agree with the recommendation of the Commissioner and dismissed the petitioner's revision petition by order, dated December 18, 1962 (Annexure 'H'), on the ground that the Assistant Collector and the Collector having held that the tenant had fulfilled the requirements of Section 18 of the Act, the tenant was entitled to purchase the land from both the transferees, and had, therefore, been rightly allowed to do so. He further held that from the conduct of the tenant even after making the said statement, it appeared that he had not given up his claim to enforce his right against Madan Lal. Dealing with the question of the original landowner's heirs having become small landowners, Shri B.S. Grewal, the learned Financial Commissioner, held that if the proceedings under Section 18 had not commenced, the argument of the heirs might have been tenable, but that in this case, the tenant had filed his application eight months before the death of the original landowner and, therefore, the tenant's eligibility was not in doubt, and in these circumstances, it would be unwarranted to deprive the tenant of his right to purchase the land. The learned Financial Commissioner again emphasised the fact that the two sales in favour of the petitioners, were suggestive of collusion and, therefore, the revenue officers below were not unjustified in ignoring them, so far as the determination of price was concerned. This led the petitioners to file the present petition on Match 4, 1963. While admitting the same on the 6th March, the Motion Bench (Mahajan and Pandit, JJ.) stayed the operation of the impugned order. No return has been filed to the rule in this case on behalf of any of the respondents. The original tenant died on October 15, 1965; during the pendency of this writ petition, and his legal representatives were brought on record on the basis of petitioners' application, dated February 25, 1966 (C.M. 732 of 1966). Mr. Rajinder Sachar Advocate, who appeared on their behalf, even at that stage objected to the grant of the application on the ground that it had been very much belated. The objection was left to be decided by the Bench hearing the main case. Mr. Sachar has again referred to the same objection at the conclusion of the hearing of the arguments of both sides. In the circumstances of the case, I do not think there is any force in that objection It is in the interests of the legal representative of the original tenant that they are before the Court in these proceedings which do not otherwise suo motu abate on account of the death of a respondent. Mr. Sachar submitted that his clients have not filed any return to the rule as they do not dispute any of the facts stated in the writ petition and they only contest the propositions of law raised by the petitioners.