BRIJ LAL Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE four Letters Patent Appeals are directed against the common judgment dated August 3, 1971, passed by Bhat J. in writ petitions Nos. 99, 101, 102 and 103, of 1969. As they raise identical questions of law and fact they shall be disposed of by this judgment.

(2.) ALTHOUGH the history of the litigations culminating in these appeals is very long and chequered, the facts material for pur ­pose of these appeals are: On August 20, 1964, Lal Chand respondent No. 2 herein instituted separate proceedings under Sections 46 and 48 of the Jammu and Kashmir Tenancy Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as "the principle Act") against each one of the appellants in these appeals before the Collector, Jammu, for their ejectment from various parcels of land situate in village Maralia, Tehsil Ranbir -singhpura, alleging that the appellants were his tenants -at -will and said plots of land were required by him for personal culti ­vation. The proceedings were contested by the appellants on various grounds. During the pendency of the aforesaid proceed ­ings Section 15 -A of the principal Act was amended by Act No. XIV of 1965, (hereinafter referred to as the Amending Act). The Amending Act inter -alia conferred the right of protected tenancy on certain classes of tenants who were in cultivating possession of the land on the date the Act came into force. The appellants thereupon claimed that in case their plea that they held the lands in their possession as owners failed they were still not liable to be ejected as they had acquired the status of protected tenants within the meaning of Section 15 -A of the Tenancy Act as amended by Act No. XIV of 1965. The collector upheld the alternative plea raised by the appellants and dismissed the afore ­said ejectment proceedings instituted against them. The appeals preferred against the judgments of the Collector by Lal Chand respondent proved abortive as the Divisional Commissioner also up -held the orders of the Collector. On further appeals, the learned Financial Commissioner, respondent No. 1 vide his order dated September 8, 1969, reversed the orders of the Collector and the Divisional Commissioner holding that Section 15 -A as amended by Act No. XIV of 1965, was not retrospective in operation and the parties were governed by the law in force on the date that ejectment proceedings were instituted. He further held that the appellants were liable to be ejected. Aggrieved by this decision, the appellants tiled the aforesaid writ petitions contending inter -alia that the Amending Act being a remedial one was retrospective in operation and they were not liable to be ejected as they had acquired the status of protected tenants. Their pleas did not find favour with the learned Single Judge who dismissed the writ petitions up -holding the decision of the Financial Commissioner. It is against this decision that the present appeals are directed.

(3.) CHOWDHRI Bhagat Ram appearing for the appellants has urged that the Amending Act which came into force on April 8, 1965, and which inter -alia amended Section 15 -A(1) of the Amending Act, by substituting therein the figures "1965 for the figures "1955" was retrospective in operation, affected the pend ­ing proceedings and the appellants were not liable to be ejected as they had acquired the status of protected tenants by virtue of the Amending Act.