INDERJIT Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are three Civil Writ Petition (Nos. 743 of 1964, 744 of 1964 and 745 of 1964) involving similar questions of facts which are as follows.

(2.) In Civil Writ No. 743 of 1964 respondent No. 3 Ram Singh tenant made an application to the Assistant Collector 1st Grade Fazilka, on Form 'Q' for purchase of land measuring about 11 acres 8 kanals and 5 marlas in village Sappanwali, tehsil Fazilka, under section 18 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act (hereinafter to be called the Act). The application was originally against Madan Lal respondent No. 4, but later on the petitioners were also impleaded. The important fact of this case is that Kalwant Rai was the original owner at the commencement of the Act, i.e. 15th April, 1953. By an oral transaction he sold the land in question along with some other land to Madan Lal, respondent No. 4, for Rs. 34140/- and mutation No. 204 in respect of the sale was sanctioned in favour of Madan Lal. The application of the tenant respondent No. 3 under section 118 of the Act was made on 6th of July 1961. Kalwant Rai had died on 22nd of August 1960 and his property devolved on eight heirs who are the petitioners in this writ petition. They include the widow, sons and daughters of Kalwant Rai. The contention of the petitioners before the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Fazilka, was that though Kalwant Rai during his lifetime was not a small landowner and under his ownership exceeded the permissible limit, but on his death each one of his heirs is a small landowner having inherited the area which is short of the permissible limit and for this reason it is no longer open to the tenant respondent No. 3 to successfully claim the right to purchase the land under section 18 of the Act. The petitioners also maintained that the oral transaction in view of the provisions of section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act after they had been enforced in Punjab on 1st of April, 1955 vide notification No. 1605-R(CH)-55/589, dated the 26th March, 1955, had become void and their rights as heirs of Kalwant Rai had remained unaffected.

(3.) The heirs of Kalwant Rai further maintained that the oral transaction in favour of Madan Lal is to be ignored in view of the provisions on section 16 of the Act. The contention of the petitioners was found favourable with the Assistant Collector 1st Grade and as the heirs of deceased Kalwant Rai were small landowners the claim of the tenant was rejected. The tenant filed an appeal to the Collector, Ferozepore, but was unsuccessful. He then presented a petition to the Additional Commissioner, Jullundur Division, who was of the view that the contention of the tenant was sound and he requested the Financial Commissioner to accept the tenant's revision and set aside the orders of the Collector and the Assistant Collector and to direct the Assistant Collector 1st Grade to dispose of the case in accordance with law. The Financial Commissioner agreed with the recommendations of the Additional Commissioner and set aside the order of the Collector and the Assistant Collector 1st Grade. Aggrieved from the order of the Financial Commissioner, the petitioners have filed this writ petition in this Court.