JAGDISH AND SANTU Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Santu, petitioner No. 2, is a big landowner. He had transferred some of his lands by gift deed dated 14th of June, 1958, to Jagdish, petitioner No. 1. This land ultimately was comprised in the surplus area of Santu, petitioner. Antu, respondent No. 6 to this petition was re-settled on this surplus area by the State in the year 1963. After completing six years as a tenant on this land, Antu filed an application under Section 18 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act (hereinafter called the Act) for the purchase of 32 kanals 16 marlas of land, which was part of the surplus area of Santu, petitioner No. 2. The tenant pleaded that he had been in continuous cultivating possession of this land for the last six years. The Collector after hearing the parties and considering the evidence adduced by them allowed the purchase of 21 kanals 14 marlas of land on payment of a sum of Rs. 3,255/-. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioners filed an appeal before the Collector and contended that they were small landowners, and as such the land in dispute was not surplus land and could not be purchased. They also raised a plea that the value of the land was not properly determined. The appeal was dismissed. A revision preferred by the petitioners to the Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala, also met the same fate. The petitioners then filed a revision petition before the Financial Commissioner. One of the pleas raised before me also was that Santu, petitioner, though a big land owner had transferred the land on 14th June, 1958 to Jagdish, petitioner, who was a small land-owner and since the transfer had been effected before 30th of July, 1958, it was valid; that the land became the permissible area of Jagdish, petitioner No. 1, and it was thus not surplus land and the tenant, therefore, could not purchase it. It was also contended that the tenant was neither a tenant under Santu nor he was a tenant under Jagdish. He had not been inducted on the land in dispute by either of the land-owners. To succeed under Section 18 of the Act, it was argued : "the tenant has to be a tenant of a land-owner other than a small landowner". So, the tenant could not purchase the land. The learned Financial Commissioner held that Antu, respondent, was a re-settled tenant on the surplus area of Santu, petitioner, whose surplus area had been finalised in 1963. No appeal or revision against that had been filed and it had become final. The transfer by a big land-owner namely Santu in favour of Jagdish was to be ignored and the surplus area was to be utilized for the re-settlement of the tenants. As such, Antu was not a tenant of Jagdish, but he was a tenant of Santu, petitioner. The Financial Commissioner dismissed the revision petition vide his order, dated 7th August, 1978. Dissatisfied with the orders of Revenue Authorities, Jagdish and Santu have filed the present writ petition.

(2.) Mr. S.K. Goyal, the learned counsel for the petitioners, has raised three points before me. He has stated - (i) that Jagdish became the owner of the land in dispute through the gift deed dated 14th June, 1958; (ii) that he was a small land-owner, the area owned by him including the land in dispute was his permissible area; (iii) that Antu respondent was not a tenant under Santu, petitioner, who was a big land-owner, and, therefore, he could not purchase the land in dispute. When the land was transferred to Jagdish, petitioner, Antu was not a tenant on this land and had been re-settled on this land later on.

(3.) There is no merit in the aforesaid contentions. In order to determine the controversy between the parties a few statutory provisions have to be noticed. For facility of reference they are reproduced below :-