(1.) These three revision petitions come recommended from the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division seeking an intervention in the orders of Collector, Jalandhar dated 6.3.1991.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case as brought out by the Commissioner in his order of 16.3.1994 are reproduced below :- The application in Form 'Q' was decided by Asstt. Collector-Ist on 24.3.72 for allowing Jagdish Singh petitioner to purchase the land. In that application Gurbachan Singh, Charanjit Singh and Mohinder Singh were not made parties to be heard in the purchase application. Financial Commissioner, vide his order dated 28.1.1982 set aside the order of the Assistant Collector and remanded the case for a fresh decision for providing an opportunity of hearing to the present respondents No. 2, 3 and 4 (Mohinder Singh, Gurbachan Singh and Charanjit Singh). Thereafter, Asstt. Collector-I, on 22.8.1983 ordered Jagdish Singh to file an amended application to the extent of his claim for purchase under Section 18. Further it was ordered that the present respondents No. 2 to 4 should also file their claim for purchase of the land, for which they considered themselves to be the rightful claimants. Notice was also issued to Guru Amarjit Singh landowner, but he did not file any reply. Jagdish Singh did not amend his application and claimed his right on 23 Kanals 11 marlas as per earlier order of the Assistant Collector dated 24.3.1972. He was allowed to purchase only 10 Kanals 0 Marlas land vide order dated 3.6.1988. Similarly, respondent No. 2 Mohinder was allowed to purchase 0 Kanal 18 marlas land. Gurbachan Singh respondent No. 3 was allowed to purchase 1 Kanal 2 marlas and Charanjit Singh, respondent No. 4 was allowed to purchase 11 Kanals 11 marlas vide orders dated 3.6.1988. These orders were challenged in three appeals before the Collector, who dismissed the same on 6.3.1991.
(3.) I have heard the parties. According to learned counsel for the petitioner (Jagdish Singh), the sub-tenant has been paying rent to the landlord as 'Gair Marusi' and 'Gair Marusi Dom'. He has not paid anything to the tenant. He cited 1979-PLJ-page 52-56 by which the sub-tenants do acquire the rights of tenant. On the other hand, learned counsel for the defendants pleaded that the sub-tenant is not the tenant and the theory that vis-a-vis sub-tenant becomes the landlord is not liable. He referred to 1979-PLJ-483 Section 18 and 1962 PLJ 47.