Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 590 (PNJ)

Jagat Singh And Anr. v. Financial Commissioner

2005-05-11

RAJIVE BHALLA

body2005
Judgment Rajive Bhalla, J. 1. Prayer, in this writ petition, filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, by the petitioners is for the issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the orders dated 23.5.1984 (Annexure P-4) and dated 26.12.1980 (Annexure P-3). 2. The facts, in brief, are as follows: 3. The petitioners instituted a suit against respondent No. 5 for recovery of Rs. 2958.80 being l/3rd share of produce for the crops Rabi 1974 to Rabi 1976, pleading therein that respondent No. 5 was a tenant and, therefore, obliged to pay rent for the land in his occupation Respondent No. 5 put in appearance and refused to pay the aforementioned l/3rd share of the produce on the plea that the land, in his possession, had been declared surplus, utilized by the Government, allotted to him on 18.3.1971, proprietary rights were conferred on 24.8.1976 and, therefore, he was not obliged to pay any amount towards l/3rd batai (rent). 4. The Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Fazilka, vide order dated 14.4.1978 (Annexure P-l), decided the preliminary issue with regard to maintainability of the aforementioned suit in favour of the petitioners and held that a relationship of landlord and tenant subsisted between the parties. An appeal, filed by the tenant-respondent No. 5, before the Collector was dismissed, vide order dated 9.11.1978 (Annexure P-2). 5. Aggrieved by the aforementioned orders, respondent No. 5 preferred a revision before the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division. Vide order dated 26.12.1980 (Annexure P-3), the Additional Commissioner, Ferozepur forwarded a reference to the Financial Commissioner, stating therein that as per his interpretation of law, the relationship between landlord and tenant stood snapped and, therefore, the orders of the Assistant Collector and the Collector was liable to be quashed. 6. The Financial Commissioner, Appeals, Punjab vide order dated 23.5.1984, accepted the reference and set aside the orders of the Assistant Collector and the Collector holding that as allotment had been made to the petitioners under the Punjab Utilization of Surplus Area Scheme, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Scheme"), the relationship of landlord and tenant stood terminated and, therefore, claim for rent was not maintainable. 7. Counsel for the petitioners contends that the proprietary rights were conferred upon respondent No. 5 on 24.8.1976. Up to the aforementioned date, the petitioners remained landlords and respondent No. 5 their tenant. 7. Counsel for the petitioners contends that the proprietary rights were conferred upon respondent No. 5 on 24.8.1976. Up to the aforementioned date, the petitioners remained landlords and respondent No. 5 their tenant. The relationship of landlord and tenant subsisted, imposing an obligation upon respondent No. 5 to pay rent. It is further contended that as the tenant/respondent No. 5 had preferred an application for purchase, he would continue to remain a tenant till such application reached its logical conclusion, namely, conferment of the right of ownership. 8. Counsel for respondent No. 5, on the other hand, contends that pursuant to para 13 of the Scheme, a tenant, allotted land, declared surplus, under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Punjab Law"), prior to the coming into force of the Punjab Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Reforms Act), would be deemed to be an allotted under the Scheme, framed pursuant to the Reforms Act. Consequently, the land would be deemed to have been utilized, vested in the State Government and allotted to the tenant Respondent No. 5 did not file any application for purchase, whether under Section 18 of the "Punjab Law" or under Section 15 of the Reforms Act. Respondent No. 5 was allotted land, on which he was a sitting tenant, on 18.3.1971 and, therefore, the relationship of landlord and tenant stood terminated. The order of the Financial Commissioner calls for no interference. 9. Reliance for the above proposition has been placed upon Bal Singh v. Swaran Singh and Ors. 1980 P.L.J. 531 and Gurcharan Singh and Ors. v. The State of Punjab and Ors. 1980 P.L.J. 458. 10. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings, the impugned orders, as also the judgments, cited by counsel for respondent No. 5. 11. A tenant has a right to purchase land comprised in his tenancy, either by filing an application for purchase under Section 18 of the Punjab Law or under Section 15 of the Reforms Act. On the acceptance of such an application, the tenant would continue to pay rent to the landlord till such time as the terms and conditions of the purchase are not satisfied and ownership rights conferred upon the tenant. 12. On the acceptance of such an application, the tenant would continue to pay rent to the landlord till such time as the terms and conditions of the purchase are not satisfied and ownership rights conferred upon the tenant. 12. However, the dispute, in the present case, is whether the relationship of landlord and tenant survives, when a sitting tenant is allotted land, under the Punjab Law, prior to the coming into force of the Reforms Act and the Scheme enacted thereunder. Para 13 of the Scheme reads as follows: "13. Conferment of proprietary rights on tenants allotted surplus land under the Punjab Law. A tenant resettled on the surplus area of landowner in accordance with the provisions of the Punjab Law and rules framed thereunder at any time before the commencement of the Act shall be deemed to have been allotted the land in accordance with the provisions of this Scheme: Provided that provisions of this paragraph shall not be applicable where the tenant is deemed to have become the owner in accordance with Clause (b) of Sub-section (4) of Section 18 of the Punjab Law before the commencement of the Scheme." 13. In Bal Singhs case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court, while dealing with the similar controversy, held as follows: "6. Now a plain reading of the afore-quoted statutory provisions when read in the light of Sections 8 and 11 of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1973 would make it manifest that the area declared surplus in the hands of the appellant-landlord would vest in the State from the time of the taking over the possession thereof and the subsequent resettlement of tenants thereon. It would follow as a necessary consequence that the land on which Swaran Singh - respondent was resettled way back in 1968 or earlier would be deemed to have vested in the State from that time. That being so, it is plain that the relationship of landlord and tenant existed (existing?) between the appellant-landlord and the respondent-Swaran Singh, would be snapped, the moment the land in question ceased to be in the legal ownership of the landlord and stood vested by law in the State. That being so, it is plain that the relationship of landlord and tenant existed (existing?) between the appellant-landlord and the respondent-Swaran Singh, would be snapped, the moment the land in question ceased to be in the legal ownership of the landlord and stood vested by law in the State. It is obviously idle for the learned Counsel for the appellant to contend that even though the appellant had ceased to be the owner of the land in question, yet the relationship of landlord and tenant would nevertheless subsist betwixt him and respondent-Swaran Singh. Once that is so, it is plain that the appellant would be left with no vestige of right to evict the respondent-tenant from land which now stood vested in the State and over which the possession of Swaran Singh-respondent was under the statutory provisions of law. In such a situation, the orders of ejectment would be patently and flagrantly inconsistent with the statutory provisions of the Utilisation Scheme framed under the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1973." In Gurcharan Singh and Ors. case (supra), while dealing with a similar situation, this Court held as follows: "8. It is then contended that the provisions of paragraphs 10 and 13 of the Scheme are inconsistent with Section 15 and Sub-section (6) of Section 11. This contention also lacks merit. Sub-section (6) of Section 11 clearly saves the rights of the tenants to purchase land in accordance with the provisions of Section 15. Because of paragraph 13 of the Scheme, all resettled tenants on the lands declared surplus under the Punjab Act shall be deemed to have become allottees on 4th July, 1973, i.e. the commencement of the Scheme. They are entitled to purchase the land after paying compensation to the State Government as provided in Section 10 of the Act. However, the old tenants who were entitled to purchase the land under Section 18 of the Punjab Act have been given preference. Their right to purchase the land has been recognized. In fact they have been given the choice to purchase the lands of their tenancy by paying compensation which shall in no case exceed Rs. 500/- per hectare." 14. However, the old tenants who were entitled to purchase the land under Section 18 of the Punjab Act have been given preference. Their right to purchase the land has been recognized. In fact they have been given the choice to purchase the lands of their tenancy by paying compensation which shall in no case exceed Rs. 500/- per hectare." 14. Para 13 of the Scheme, re-produced herein before, mandates that a tenant, allotted land, declared surplus, under the Punjab Law or resettled thereon, shall be deemed to have been allotted the said land, under the Scheme, framed under the Reforms Act, even if the allotment was made under the Punjab Law, prior to the enforcement of the Reforms Act. Thus, as a natural consequence, and by way of a deeming fiction, not only would the allotment be deemed to be one under the Scheme, framed under the Reforms Act but as the tenant would be a sitting tenant, the land would be deemed to have been utilized and vested in the State Government with effect from the date of allotment and delivery of symbolic possession. The judgments, referred to above, fortify the above conclusion of law. 15. In this view of the matter, the land having vested in the State Government, having been utilized and allotted, the relationship of landlord and tenant would come to an end. The landlord would be divested of his right to claim rent and the tenant absolved of his obligation to pay rent. 16. Admittedly, respondent No. 5 did not apply for purchase of surplus area, whether under Section 15 of the Reforms Act or under Section 18 of the Punjab Law. He was allotted land upon which he was a sitting tenant on 18.3.1971. This land had been declared surplus, under the Punjab Law. Symbolic possession thereof was delivered to him on 18.3.1971. Thus, in terms of para 13 of the Scheme, the land stood utilized and vested in the State Government w.e.f 18.3.1971 and allotted under the scheme, framed under the Reforms Act w.e.f. 18.3.1971. As a result, the relationship of landlord and tenant stood terminated w.e.f. 18.3.1971 bringing to an end the petitioners right to claim rent and the obligation of respondent No. 5 to pay rent. The claim, raised by the petitioners, for payment of rent, is from Rabi 1974 to Rabi 1976. As a result, the relationship of landlord and tenant stood terminated w.e.f. 18.3.1971 bringing to an end the petitioners right to claim rent and the obligation of respondent No. 5 to pay rent. The claim, raised by the petitioners, for payment of rent, is from Rabi 1974 to Rabi 1976. In view of the legal, and factual position, stated above, such a claim could not have been raised, as the relationship of landlord and tenant stood terminated w.e.f. 18.3.1971. 17. In view of what has been stated above, impugned orders dated (23.5.1984) (An-nexure P-4) and 26.12.1980 (Annexure P-3) call for no interference and are upheld and the present writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.