KHAZAN SINGH Vs. DALIP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the order of a learned Single Judge confirming the order of the District Judge, who had upset the judgment of the trial Court.

(2.) Facts briefly stated are : Khazan Singh and Jage are landlords who had made reservation in accordance with the provisions of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The respondents Dalip Singh etc. were the tenants of one or the other landlord. Landlords filed application for the eviction of the tenants under Section 9 of the Act. This application was made on 2nd of January, 1956, and by an order dated 13th of February, 1956, Exhibit P. 8, the Collector held that the land now in dispute formed part of the reserved area of the landlords and that the landlords were entitled to get an order of ejectment. This order was passed with the proviso that the tenants will be actually dispossessed when they are settled on some other surplus area. A little less than a month after this decision, that is on 3rd of March, 1956, an application was made by the tenants under Section 18 of the Act for the purchase of the land in dispute. On 31st of July, 1956, the Assistant Collector vide his order, copy Exhibit P. 9, allowed this application holding that the reservation made by the landlords was in excess of the permissible area of 30 standard acres and consequently the land in dispute can be allowed to be purchased by the tenants. Further appeals taken by the landlords to the higher Revenue Authorities did not bring any success to them and finally they brought the suit out of which the present appeal has arisen, seeking a declaration that the order of the Assistant Collector dated 31st of July, 1956, allowing the defendants to purchase the land in dispute was void, without jurisdiction and ineffective. Inter-alia, it was alleged in the plaint that the total land in dispute was 16 Bighas 3 Biswas and out of the same, plaintiff No. 1 Khazan Singh was in possession of 8 Bighas 6 Biswas till the year 1954 when he parted with possession of about 3 Bighas and that he was still in possession of the balance of 5 Bighas and that in any case the entire land was within the reserved area of the plaintiffs and that the Assistant Collector had no jurisdiction to allow the purchase of the land which was in possession of the plaintiffs till the year 1954 and some of it even thereafter and which formed part of the reserved area. The defendant-respondents disputed the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain the suit and further stated that the reservation made by the plaintiffs was not in order and that the order of the Assistant Collector was well based. As a result of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were settled :

(3.) To appreciate the controversy, reference may be made to the relevant part of Section 18 of the Act, which confers the right on the tenants and gives jurisdiction to the Assistant Collector to fix the price for the purchase by the tenants etc :