Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 949 (PNJ)

Gurbakhsh Singh v. State Of Punjab

2004-08-25

HEMANT GUPTA

body2004
Judgment Hemant Gupta, J. 1. The petitioners are aggrieved against the order passed by the learned Financial Commissioner on 2.3.1983, (Annexure P9) whereby respondents No. 4 to 7 were permitted to purchase the land in dispute in accordance with law. 2. An area measuring 34 Kanals 19 marlas in village Asron was declared surplus with the petitioners and was allotted to respondent No. 4 and Narain Singh father of respondents No. 5 to 7 (hereinafter referred to as tenants) under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the Rules framed thereunder. The possession of the land allotted was given to the tenants on 24.10.1961. 3. On 21.3.1973 the tenants made an application before the Assistant Collector First Grade, Garhshankar under Section 18 of the Act for the purchase of the land allotted to them. The petitioners herein filed a separate petition for the ejectment of the allottees on the ground that the share of the produce in terms of Rule 20-C of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules, 1956 has not been given. An application was filed by the petitioners on 12.2.74 for deciding the application for ejectment and for the purchase of the land by the tenants simultaneously. The Assistant Collector, First Grade, Garhshankar on 16.4.1975 allowed the application of purchase made by the tenants and conferred proprietory rights in the land measuring 5 kanals 15 marlas in favour of the allottees on payment of compensation amount qua the share of Harbax Singh another co-share of the petitioner who was proceeded ex parte. Said order also compromise between the petitioners and the tenants wherein the tenants have relinquished their rights in one half share of the land i.e. 14 Kanals 17 marlas in lieu of the price payable by the tenants for the remaining half of the land allotted to them in lieu of compensation payable by them. The Assistant Collector, 1st Grade held that no price shall be payable by the allottees in respect of the land measuring 14 kanals 7 marlas i.e. half share of the land. However, in respect of the share of Harbax Singh, the amount of compensation, Rs. 640/- was payable in 10 equal instalments. The first instalment was payable within 30 days. 4. Subsequently, Harbax Singh sought review of the order passed by the Assistant Collector. However, in respect of the share of Harbax Singh, the amount of compensation, Rs. 640/- was payable in 10 equal instalments. The first instalment was payable within 30 days. 4. Subsequently, Harbax Singh sought review of the order passed by the Assistant Collector. The Assistant Collector reviewed the order after obtaining permission from the Collector. After review the application for purchase for the share of Harbaksh Singh was allowed for purchase of 8 kanal 12 marlas of land on the market price of Rs. 954.63P payable in six monthly equal instalments vide order dated 27.7.1977. 5. However, the tenants moved an application on 1.1.1979 to the effect that the land declared surplus cannot revert to the owners and the tenants are entitled to purchase the same i.e. 14 kanals 17 marlas of land through instalments for the price fixed under the law. It was alleged that after the land was declared surplus and land allotted, the petitioners herein have no interest or right in the land in dispute. On such application the learned Collector passed order on 9.8.1979 allowing the tenants to purchase land measuring 11 kanals 13 marlas (as 2 kanals 17 marlas fell in the share of Harbax Singh) on payment of compensation. Such order was challenged by the petitioner in appeal before the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar. The same was allowed and the purchase application was dismissed on the ground that the application for purchase of land was not moved by the tenants within one year of the coming into it force of Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1952 and thus set aside the order of the Collector. The tenants filed a revision petition before the Financial Commissioner. The same was accepted as it was held that the application filed by the tenants in the year 1979 was not a new application but in continuation of earlier application which was disposed of in terms of void compromise and thus the application for purchase has to be treated as pending at the time of commencement of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the land in dispute was acquired by the State Government vide Notification dated 7.6,1978 published under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and in pursuance of such Notification the Land Acquisition Collector announced his award on 27 3.1979 Annexure P4. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the land in dispute was acquired by the State Government vide Notification dated 7.6,1978 published under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and in pursuance of such Notification the Land Acquisition Collector announced his award on 27 3.1979 Annexure P4. It is argued that since the land in dispute was acquired during the proceedings pertaining to the purchase of the land, the same stands statutory abated as the tenant could not purchase the land which stands acquired during the pendency of the proceedings. Reliance was placed upon a judgment of this court reported in Bihari Lal v. Col. His Highness Raja Sir Harinder Singh Barar Bans Bahadur, 1977 P.L.J. 189. 7. However, 1 am unable to agree with the argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The tenant has made an application for the purchase of the allotted land within the period prescribed under Section 15 of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972. Said application was allowed by the Assistant Collector on 16.4.1975 whereby half of the land was ordered to be adjusted towards the price payable by the tenants and the remaining land vested with the tenants. That part of the order wherein the land was ordered to be reverted in favour of the petitioners is a void order and such part of the order is in fact not disputed. It was declared to be void when the tenants moved an application Annexure P5 on 1.1.1979. The learned Collector was perfectly justified in holding that such arrangement could not have been entered upon as reversion of such land with the petitioners has the effect of increase of their land holding and again to be declared surplus. 8. The Commissioner was not justified in rejecting the application for purchase of the land only on the ground that it was not moved within one year. Financial Commissioner has rightly held that the application cannot be treated to be barred by limitation as the application for purchase was in fact moved within one year as the application dated 1.1.1979 was not a first application but in continuation of application made earlier. Still further, the purchase price has to be deposited in a Govt. treasury or Sub Treasury or paid to Assistant Collector in terms of Rule 23(3) of the Rules. Still further, the purchase price has to be deposited in a Govt. treasury or Sub Treasury or paid to Assistant Collector in terms of Rule 23(3) of the Rules. It is apparent from the averment made in the written statement filed on behalf of the official respondents that compensation assessed by the Collector vide order dated 7.8.1979 was deposited on 21.8.1979 and the sale certificate was issued in favour of the tenants on 23.8.1979. 9. Under section 18(4)(B), the tenant is deemed to have become owner of the land on the deposit of purchase price in lump-sum or on the payment of first instalment thereof being deposited, the tenant having deposited the purchase price as assessed by the Collector is deemed to have become owner of the land. Section 18(4) of the Act reads as under; "18. Rights or certain tenants to purchase land- (1) (2) (3) (4) (a) the tenant shall be competent to pay the purchase price either in a lump sum or in six monthly instalments not exceeding ten in the manner prescribed. (b) On the purchase price or the first instalment thereof, as the case may be, being deposited, the tenant shall be deemed to have become the owner of the land, and the Assistant Collector shall, where the tenant is not already in possession and subject to the provisions of the Punjab Tenancy Act (XVI) of 1887 put him in possession thereof. (c) If a default is committed in the payment of any of the instalments, the entire outstanding balance shall, on application by the person entitled to receive it, be recoverable as arrears of land revenue, XX XX 10. The judgment referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioners is clearly distinguishable. In the said case the land sought to be acquired was by Notification dated 3.8.1961 under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. Possession of the land was taken on 4.10.1961 i.e. much before the Assistant Collector allowed application on 4.3.1983 and thus it was held that the application for purchase has suffered statutory abatement. However, the judgment referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner became subject-matter of consideration in a judgment reported in Col, Sir Harinder Singh Brar Bans Bahadur v. Binari Lal and Ors., (1994-2)J07 P-L.R.195 (S.C.). However, the judgment referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner became subject-matter of consideration in a judgment reported in Col, Sir Harinder Singh Brar Bans Bahadur v. Binari Lal and Ors., (1994-2)J07 P-L.R.195 (S.C.). A question arose in the said case as to when file landowner, whose land could be purchased by a tenant ceases to have an interest in it. The court held to the following effect: Clause (a) of sub-section (4) or section 18 gives the option to the tenant to deposit purchase price or first instalment thereof as fixed by the Assistant Collector. Because of the legal fiction created by clause (b) of sub-section (4) of that section, when once the purchase price or the first instalment of purchase money; as specified by the Assistant Collector, is deposited, such tenant becomes the deemed owner of the land comprised in his tenancy. Hence, there can arise no room for any doubt that a tenant who is in possession of the property, because of the deposit of purchase price he makes, becomes the absolute owner, displacing the landowners interest in such land, possessed till then. Clause (c) of sub-section (4) of Section 18 when states that the default on the part of the tenant in making instalments or purchase price, will allow the person entitled to the same to recover it as arrears of land revenue, it becomes clear that the intendment of the Act is not to postpone the right of the tenant to become the owner of the land comprised in his tenancy on account of non-payment of purchase price even if a higher purchase price is fixed by Appellate or Revisional Authority. Moreover, when the object of tenancy legislation, as well settled, is to make the tenant, the tiller of the land, its owner, the beneficial provisions which are made thereunder to confer ownership rights on tenants, cannot receive a construction which results in either postponing or defeating the right of ownership conferred on tenants in respect of their tenanted lands. As the acceptance of the argument of the learned counsel of the appellant is bound to have the effect of defeating the object of the provisions in the tenures Act avowedly made by the legislature for conferring right of ownership of land on its tenants, we find it difficult to accept it. As the acceptance of the argument of the learned counsel of the appellant is bound to have the effect of defeating the object of the provisions in the tenures Act avowedly made by the legislature for conferring right of ownership of land on its tenants, we find it difficult to accept it. However, it is made clear that if there was a deposit of purchase price or first instalment thereof made by a tenant when the operation of the order relating to fixation of purchase price was stayed by competent authority or court, such deposit could not have made the tenant a deemed owner. Our answer to the question under consideration, therefore, is that a land owner of land which could be purchased by a tenant under section 18 of the Tenures Act ceases to be its land owner and consequently ceases to have any interest in such land, on such tenant depositing according to sub section (4) thereof, its purchase price or first instalment or its purchase price as fixed by Assistant Collector and becoming its deemed owner as envisaged thereunder." 11. The tenants have deposited the amount of compensation in terms of the order of the Collector dated 6.8.1979 and became owner of the land. Even as per the order passed by the Assistant Collector on 16.4.1975, half of the land vested with the tenants as owner without payment or any compensation. Undisputably, the tenants have become owners of the land falling to the share of Harbax Singh to the extent of 8 kanals 12 marlas. The argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that on account of acquisition of land the purchase application did not survive is without any merit. As per recitals in the award dated 27.3.1979, the land will vest with the State Government free from all encumberances from the date of its taking over possession. From the record of the writ petition, the date of taking over the possession is not available. 12. A question which arises is whether the tenants can be deemed to be owners of the land prior to vesting of land with the State Government. Provisions of section 18 (4) of the Act confers ownership right on the tenant with the payment of first instalment itself. Such ownership rights will vest in the tenants from the date on which he moved an application for purchase of the land. Provisions of section 18 (4) of the Act confers ownership right on the tenant with the payment of first instalment itself. Such ownership rights will vest in the tenants from the date on which he moved an application for purchase of the land. Although there was no period prescribed for purchase of land in respect of the cases failing under clause (i) and (ii) of Section 18 of the Act but under section 15 of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972 the period of limitation for exercise of a right to purchase has been contemplated as one year from the date of commencement of the said Act. It is thus, held that the right crystalised on the date, the tenant moved an application for the purchase of land although it may fructify subsequently. Therefore, the tenants have become owners of the land much prior to vesting of land with the State Government and thus, the argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners that purchase application filed by the tenants does not survive is with- out any merit. 13. Consequently, I do not find that the order passed by the financial commissioner suffers from any illegality or irregularity warranting interference by this court in extra ordinary writ jurisdiction.