GAUSHALA KALAN ASSOCIATION Vs. SALES TAX TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Gaushala Kalan Association is a big landowner and Baggar was a tenant under it. He filed an application under Section 18 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (hereinafter called the Act) for the purchase of land measuring 61 Bighas 3 Biswas comprised in his tenancy under the association. The Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Bhiwani, allowed this application only to the extent of 5 Bighas and 15 Biswas of land, vide his order dated 31st of December, 1962. Both the parties filed appeals against this order. The Collector, Hissar, dismissed the appeal filed by the landowner and allowed the appeal filed by the tenant and permitted him to purchase the whole of the land measuring 61 Bighas and 3 Biswas excepting one Khasra number. The tenant paid the first instalment of the compensation in pursuance of this order of the Collector dated 11th October, 1963. The landowner-petitioner filed an appeal against the order of Collector before the Additional Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala. According to the petitioner, this appeal was allowed and the purchase-application was kept pending till the policy decision was taken by the Government regarding the lands of charitable institutions like Gaushalas. No revision petition was filed against this order dated 20th February, 1964 of the Additional Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala. After this order, the tenant withdrew the amount which was deposited on account of instalment of the purchase price, in compliance with order dated 11th October, 1963, passed by the Collector. On 10th August, 1964, the petitioner filed an ejectment application against the tenant seeking his ejectment from a part of the land in dispute on the ground of sub-letting. This application was allowed by a Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Bhiwani, on 2nd of January, 1965, and the ejectment of the tenant was ordered. The appeal filed by the tenant against this order was dismissed by the Collector, Hissar, as per orders dated 27th April, 1965. On 13th August, 1965, the petitioner filed an ejectment application under Section 14-A(i) read with Section 9(1)(iii) of the Act seeking ejectment of the tenant with respect to the land in dispute measuring 121 Kanals and 10 Marlas on the ground of non-payment of rent regularly without sufficient cause. This application was also allowed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Bhiwani, by his order dated 3rd of May, 1966. The Commissioner dismissed the revision petition of the tenant against the order of the Collector dismissing his appeal. Baggar, respondent-tenant moved the Commissioner, Ambala Division, with an application for deciding the appeal of the petitioner which had earlier been disposed of by Shri Damodar Dass, Additional Commissioner, Ambala Division, by his order dated 20th February, 1964. The Commissioner, Ambala Division, Shri M.L. Batra, accepted the application made by the tenant. He held that Shri Damodar Dass, Additional Commissioner, vide his order dated 20th February, 1964, directed that the petition be kept pending till the Government took a final decision in the matter. He also held that the words "I accept the appeal" used by the learned Additional Commissioner (Shri Damodar Dass) had to be read in the context in which they were used. The learned Additional Commissioner, Shri Damodar Dass, did not go into the merits of the case. He merely kept the papers pending till the Government policy in this respect was settled. He also held that since the then Financial Commissioner has ruled that such cases should be decided in accordance with the law and so long as the legislation is not amended, these instructions cannot override the statutory provisions. So, Shri M.L. Batra Commissioner taking it that Shri Damodar Dass, Additional Commissioner, had not decided the matter earlier and had just kept it pending till the policy decision by the Government was taken, himself decided the appeal filed by the landowner-petitioner and dismissed the same. He held that the orders of ejectment passed against the tenant in 1965 were of no consequence as before the passing of those orders, the tenant had become the owner of the land in dispute after payment of the first instalment. So he could not be ejected. The landowner-petitioner filed a revision petition to the Financial Commissioner against this order and the same was dismissed by him on 27th May, 1969. Dissatisfied with the orders of the Financial Commissioner, the landowner-petitioner had filed this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India in this Court.

(2.) Mr. H.L. Sarin, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has argued that once Shri Damodar Dass, Additional Commissioner, had decided the matter and accepted the appeal filed by the petitioner against the purchase application, Shri M.L. Batra, Commissioner, had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter. According to the learned counsel, the tenor of the order of Shri Damodar Dass, Additional Commissioner, shows that he had accepted the appeal and had kept the petition pending which means that he had kept the purchase-petition pending, so, Shri M.L. Batra, Commissioner, had no jurisdiction to rehear the matter and reject the appeal of the petitioner. There is no merit in this contention. Shri Batra, Commissioner, had minutely analysed the order of the Additional Commissioner and came to a conclusion that the matter had not been decided finally and the appeal had, in fact, been kept pending by the Additional Commissioner. The mere use of the words "I accept the appeal" is not conclusive because if we read the whole order of the Additional Commissioner, then it becomes clear that in fact he was keeping the appeal pending and that the words "the petition be kept pending" relate to the petition of appeal because Shri Damodar Dass, Additional Commissioner, thought that the matter had to be decided by him after the policy decision was taken by the Government. The Commissioner and he Financial Commissioner have correctly interpreted the orders passed by Shri Damodar Dass, Additional Commissioner, that the matter had not been decided by him. So, it had to be decided by the Commissioner (Shri M.L. Batra) in accordance with the law laid down by the Financial Commissioner. The Financial Commissioner had rightly ordered that the cases be not kept pending and should be decided in accordance with the statutory provisions prevalent at the time.

(3.) Mr. Sarin, learned counsel for the petitioner, then argued that the tenant had withdrawn the money deposited by him and as such this will tantamount to withdrawal of his purchase-application itself. There is no merit in this contention also. By virtue of the provisions of Section 18 of the Act, the tenant is deemed to become the owner of the land after the payment of the first instalment of the compensation. In this case, the tenant had made the payment of the first instalment of the compensation amount in 1963. As such, he became the owner of the land in dispute. His subsequent withdrawal of the money so deposited cannot affect his rights because Section 18 of the Act itself says that the arrears of compensation can be recovered as arrears of land revenue and does not say that for non-payment of the compensation, the tenant loses rights acquired by him. Once the tenant becomes the owner, any default on his behalf does not take away his rights. Mr. Sarin has not been able to support his contention with any precedent.