RAM SINGH Vs. INDERJIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Common points of law and facts are involved in these four appeals under Clause X of the Letters Patent and Civil Writ No. 2604 of 1967. Letters Patent Appeal Nos. 357, 358 and 359 of 1967 are directed against the same judgment of the learned Single Judge by which he allowed three connected writ petitions before him. Letters Patent Appeal No. 80 of 1967 is directed against the judgment of another learned Single Judge whilst Civil Writ No. 2604 of 1967 has been directed to be heard with L.P.A. No. 80 of 1967 by the Motion Bench. All these will be conveniently disposed of by this judgment.

(2.) We first take up Letters Patent Appeal Nos. 357 to 359 of 1967 as the facts contained therein are closely similar if not identical. It is necessary only to detail the facts in Letters Patent Appeal No. 359 of 1967. One Kalwant Rai was the original owner of considerable agricultural land in village Sappauwali, Tehsil Fazilka, at the commencement of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, i.e. 15th of April, 1953. By an oral transaction he sold the land in question along with some other land to Madan Lal, respondent No. 11, for Rs. 34140/- and a mutation No. 204 in respect of this sale was sanctioned in favour of Madan Lal. Similar mutations No. 205 and 206 were also sanctioned in favour of Rajinder Kumar and Sohan Lal as well. Ram Singh appellant who was a tenant of the said Kalwant Rai 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 under Section 18 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act (hereinafter called the Act). This application was originally made against Madan Lal respondent No. 11 but later on respondent Nos. 1 to 8 were also impleaded therein. The significant fact, however, is that whilst this application of the appellant-tenant was made on 6th of July, 1961 Kalwant Rai had died on 22nd of August, 1960 and his property devolved on his widow, sons and daughters who are respondent Nos. 1 to 8 in this appeal and were petitioners in the writ petition before the learned Single Judge. The contention raised on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 8 in resisting purchase application under Section 18 of the Act by the appellant was that though Kalwant Rai during his life time was a big landowner but on his death the property devolved on the eight heirs each one of whom was a small landowner having inherited an area substantially below the permissible limit. It was hence contended that it was no longer possible for the tenant to successfully claim the right to purchase under Section 18 of the Act. The second material contention raised was that the oral transaction made by Kalwant Rai and evidenced by the mutations were void and of no legal effect in view of the provisions of Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act after they had been enforced in the Punjab on 1st of April 1955 by notification No. 1605-R(CH)-55/589, dated the 26th March, 1955 and, therefore, the rights of the heirs of Kalwant Rai had remained wholly unaffected by the above-said oral transfers. Lastly, it was contended on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 8, heirs of Kalwant Rai, that the transaction in favour of Madan Lal, respondent No. 11, had otherwise also to be ignored in view of the provisions of Section 16 of the Act. These contentions found favour with the Assistant Collector 1st Grade who rejected the claim of the appellant to purchase as respondents 1 to 8 were held to be small landowners. The appellant then moved an appeal to the Collector, Ferozepur, which was unsuccessful.

(3.) Aggrieved against this he moved the petition before the Additional Commissioner, Jullundur Division, who was of the view that the contentions of the appellant were sound and he recommended the said petition to the Financial Commissioner for acceptance. The Financial Commissioner agreeing with the recommendation of the Additional Commissioner set aside the orders of the Courts below and allowed the purchase application of the present appellant. It was against this order of the Financial Commissioner that the respondent Nos. 1 to 8 came up by way of writ petition which has been accepted by the learned Single Judge.