Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 147 (PNJ)

Sham Lal v. Financial Commissioner

2003-01-27

HEMANT GUPTA, S.S.NIJJAR

body2003
Judgment S.S.Nijjar, J. 1. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length and perused, the paper book. 2. A perusal of the record shows that the petitioner is a retired Havaldar and in recognition of his services to the country he was put in possession of waste land measuring 43 kanals 11 marlas in Village Zaffarwal, Tehsil Zira District Ferozepur, on the basis of the policy decision dated 17.12.1965. This land was given to the petitioner on the basis of the policy which contains inter alia the following conditions:- "xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx 4. The land should be leased out for ten years in the first instance. After a period of five years, however, the lessees shall have the option to purchase the land at the following rates:- Rs. 100/- per acre for irrigated/cultivated land. Rs. 75/- per acre for u in-irrigated cultivable land. Rs. 40/- per acre for banjar land and Rs. 25/- per acre for Ghair-mumkin land. The lease money recovered from them shall be deducted from the sale price and the net amount due shall be payable in lumpsum or in four five equal annual instalments. xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx 6. If a lessee does not we int to purchase the land, he shall deliver vacant possession of the land allotted to him and will not be entitled to any compensation for the improvements made thereon." 3. The petitioner did not exercise the options to purchase the land within five years or even ten years. Rather he entered into litigation with respondent No. 4 with regard to the possession of the land. Ultimately, the petitioner made an option to purchase the land on 10.12.1996. In the meantime fresh lease has been granted on 28.11.1987. The option exercised by the petitioner was accepted by the Collector on 16.12.1996. On an appeal being filed by respondent No. 4 the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division remanded the matter back to the Collector. On remand, the allotment was cancelled by the Collector. Against the aforesaid order, the petitioner filed appeal before the Commissioner. By order dated II.9.2001, the Commissioner agreed with the findings of the District Collector and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved against the aforesaid order, the petitioner filed Revision before the Financial Commissioner. On remand, the allotment was cancelled by the Collector. Against the aforesaid order, the petitioner filed appeal before the Commissioner. By order dated II.9.2001, the Commissioner agreed with the findings of the District Collector and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved against the aforesaid order, the petitioner filed Revision before the Financial Commissioner. After considering the entire history of the litigation between he parties, the Financial Commissioner has come to the conclusion that both the petitioner and respondent No. 4 have no right or title in the land in dispute. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that under Condition N6.4, it was not necessary for the petitioner to exercise the option within the period of five years. The petitioner could hav e exercised the option at any time. He further submitted that the petitioner was unable to give the option as in the meantime he had been entangled in Civil Litigation by respondent No. 4 who had tried to forcibly take the possession of the land during the period of terrorism in the State of Punjab. This litigation and the correction of revenue entries on the basis of the judgment in favour of the petitioner came to an end on 20.11.1988. Therefore, the petitioner was justified in exercising the option on 16.12.1996. It is further submitted by Mr. Joshi that the land was rightly allotted to the petitioner as nothing was due to be paid to the State under the lease executed on both the occasions. 5. We have anxiously considered the submissions made by the learned counsel. In our opinion, the Financial Commissioner has rightly come to the conclusion that both the petitioner and respondent No. 4 have been trying to take illegal possession of the land which belongs to the Stage. This land has been specially earmarked to be allotted to Rai Sikh and Ex-serviceman in Ferozepur district who were landlords and were actual tillers of the land. This land falls in strip which is five miles from the Indo-Pak Border. The Financial Commissioner has also rightly held that the petitioner had to exercise the option to purchase the land within five years. The petitioner made no claim to buy the land till the year 1996. This land falls in strip which is five miles from the Indo-Pak Border. The Financial Commissioner has also rightly held that the petitioner had to exercise the option to purchase the land within five years. The petitioner made no claim to buy the land till the year 1996. The Financial Commissioner has also rightly observed that both the petitioner and respondent No. 4 have no valid claim for allotment/sale of property in dispute and they engaged in a mad-race to get the property in dispute by outwitting each other. It has been correctly held that they are only trying to get property which is worth lakhs of rupees. In view of the above, we find no error in the order passed by the Financial Commissioner. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed.