NATHA Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Natha is a tenant under Shrimati Basanti Devi who was a big landowner. In the year 1967, he made an application to the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Jagadhri, under Section 18(2) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for purchase of 17 kanals 18 marlas of land belonging to Shrimati Basanti Devi respondent, which was declared surplus. This land comprised of Khasra No. 39/12 measuring 7 Kanals 12 marlas. This application was allowed by the Assistant Collector on 29.1.1969. He determined the price of the land and ordered that the first instalment of Rs. 162.80 be deposited within 15 days of the order. The petitioner complied with the order and paid the first instalment and as such under Section 18(4) of the Act he was deemed to have become the owner of this land. It is averred that later on he deposited six more instalments. The landowner filed an appeal against this order. The Collector upheld the entitlement of the petitioner to purchase the land in dispute. However, he differed with the conclusions arrived at by the Assistant Collector regarding the price of the land. So, he remanded the case to the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade for redetermination of the price. This matter is still pending before the Assistant Collector.

(2.) On 28.8.1968, Surja, respondent No. 3, purchased Khasra No. 39/12 from Shrimati Basanti Devi. He made an application for the sanction of mutation. It may be mentioned at this stage that the land purchased by the petitioner had been mutated in his name on 22.4.1969. So, the application of Surja respondent for sanction of mutation was rejected on 29.7.1976. In the meantime, on 27.5.1971, Surja respondent filed an application for ejectment of the petitioner from Khasra No. 39/12 under Section 14-A(i) of the Act. This was dismissed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade on the ground that the petitioner was no more a tenant and he had become an owner after the payment of the first instalment. So he could not be ejected from the land in dispute. The appeal and the revision filed by Surja respondent against this order to the Collector and the Commissioner respectively were also dismissed. He did not file a revision petition before the Financial Commissioner and this order became final between the parties. In these proceedings between the parties, a positive finding was given that the petitioner was the owner of this land and Surja respondent was not entitled to eject him for non-payment of rent. Surja filed still another application under Section 14-A(ii) of the Act before the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade on 15.11.1971 for the recovery of arrears of rent from the petitioner. This application was dismissed and the appeal filed by Surja was allowed by the Collector. The petitioner filed a revision petition against this order but the same was dismissed. A further revision filed by the petitioner to the Financial Commissioner also met the same fate. Dissatisfied with these orders of the revenue authorities, the petitioner has filed the present petition in this Court.

(3.) Mr. K.S. Kundu, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has argued that after deposit of the first instalment in pursuance of the order passed on his application under Section 18 of the Act, the petitioner became the owner of the land in dispute in the month of February 1969. On the date when he filed this purchase application in 1967, Surja respondent was not his landowner. It is well settled now that for the determination of an application under Section 18(2) of the Act, the position of the parties and the land has to be seen on the date of application itself. In the date of the application for the purchase of the land in dispute, Surja respondent had nothing to do with the land in dispute. His later purchase of the land will not effect the rights of the petitioner, which had crystallised on the date of filing of the application under Section 14-A(i) of the Act filed by Surja respondent had been dismissed. The competent revenue authorities held that the petitioner had become the owner of the land in dispute and so he was not liable to be ejected. This was a decision between the parties and was binding on Surja respondent even in the subsequent proceedings. Mr. Kundu has also contended that the mere fact that the Collector had remanded the case for redetermination of the price did not set aside the order of purchase. The only dispute was regarding the price under Section 18 of the Act. The petitioner had complied with the order passed under Section 18 by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade and by deposit of the first instalment he became the owner of the land. Subsequently, even if it was found that the price of the land was more, then the balance amount could be recovered from the petitioner. A combined reading of clauses (b) and (c) of sub-section (4) of Section 18 of the Act shows that no sooner does the tenant deposit the money in compliance with the order passed by the Assistant Collector then he becomes the owner of the land. Clause (c) of Section 18(4) provides that if a default is committed by the purchaser in the payment of any of the instalments, the balance can be recovered as arrears of land revenue. It does not provide for penalty of cancellation of the purchase. So, after the deposit of the first instalment, the petitioner became the owner. Simply because there was a dispute regarding the price of the land, rights already conferred on the petitioner cannot be said to have vanished by the decision of the Collector. Mr. Gian Singh, on the other hand, has stated that unless the price has been redetermined by the Assistant Collector, it cannot be said that the first instalment has been deposited. There is no merit in this submission. The first instalment had been deposited by the petitioner. He deposited six more instalments. If the price is enhanced by the Assistant Collector, the balance amount can be recovered from the petitioner but that does not mean that he has not become the owner of the land in dispute. The order of the Collector, the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner, ordering the payment of arrears of rent in favour of Surja respondent and consequential order of ejectment of the petitioner are clearly illegal and void. I, therefore, accept this petition and set aside the order dated 4.7.1975, 6.1.1976 and 7.5.1976 of the Collector, the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner respectively. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.