THAKAR LAL Vs. BRIJ LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is plaintiffs' second appeal whose suit for declaration and permanent injunction had been dismissed by both the courts below. Ram Singh, defendant No. 4, was admittedly the original owner of the suit land measuring 16 kanals. He sold the same to the plaintiffs vide sale deed dated Ist December, 1958 for a sum of Rs. 2,000/-. The land was under mortgage at that time which was later on redeemed by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs were already recorded as land-owner in the revenue record. On 3rd June, 1964 defendant Nos. 1 to 3 obtained the possession of the suit land with the help of the revenue authorities on the ground that the suit land was surplus land of defendant Ram Singh and defendant Nos. 1 to 3 who were ejected tenants, were accommodated thereon under the provisions of section 9- A of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act. Later on the said defendants made as application in the year 1970-71 to the Assistant Collector Ist grade, Palwal, purporting to purchase the suit land under the provisions of section 18 of the said Act which was accepted vide order dated 30th December, 1970 and the said order was maintained upto the Financial Commissioner. The plaintiffs challenged the said orders of the revenue authorities in the present suit on the ground that they being the small land-owners, the application under section 18 ibid filed by defendants. 1 to 3 could not be accepted.

(2.) The suit was contested on the ground that the land in dispute had been allotted to them in pursuance of the provisions of the said Act and as ejected tenants who were resettled on the surplus land of the big land owners, they were entitled to purchase it under section 18 of the said Act and, therefore, the impugned orders were valid and legal. It was also pleaded that the civil court had no jurisdiction to try the suit. The trial court found that the impugned orders were passed within the ambit of the powers and jurisdiction conferred under the Act and since the orders were passed within the jurisdiction, the civil court had no jurisdiction to upset the same. Consequently, the plaintiffs' suit was dismissed. In appeal the learned Additional District Judge affirmed the said findings of the trial court and thus maintained the decree dismissing the plaintiffs' suit.

(3.) This appeal now stands concluded by the Full Bench judgment of this court reported in Chander Bhan v. The Financial Commissioner, Haryana, Chandigarh, and others,1981 PunLJ 523 wherein it was held that a statutory resettled tenant would become the tenant of the small land-owner-vendee who had earlier purchased the same from a big land-owner. Consequently being the tenant of the small land-owner, he would not satisfy the basic pre-requisite of section 18 of the said Act and would be disentitled to purchase the land.