Bakshi Ram vs Financial Commissioner (Develop) Pb.

V.K. Bali, J.

Bakshi Ram and others through present petition filed by them under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeks a writ in the nature of Certiorari so as to quash the orders dated 23.6.1988 passed by Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Punjab dismissing their revision petition as also order dated 14.5.1991 again passed by the Financial Commissioner dismissing the application for reviewing the order dated 23.6.1988.

The facts of the case reveal that the petitioners are the legal heirs of one Anant Ram who was a tenant of a big landowner. It is pleaded that Anant Ram was an old tenant sitting on the land of Shri Shiv Ram. Some area in the hands of Shiv Ram, landowner including Khasra No. 68/20/1 measuring 5 Kanals 12 Marlas was declared surplus under the provisions of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953. It is pleaded that Anant Ram being the sitting tenant on the land comprised in Khasra No. 68/20/1 was entitled to get the said land included in his permissible area being protected under the Act of 1953. However, the big landowner with a view to evade the utilization of the declared surplus area and to deprive Anant Ram of his rights of tenancy surreptitiously transferred by saledeed the said land sometimes in the year 1976 to one Shri Bachittar Singh who further sold it to respondents No. 2 to 4. The big landowner got an order passed in his favour on 24.6.1976 from the Collector Agrarian Anandpur Sahib declaring him to be a small landowner under the provisions of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972. It is pleaded that while getting the order aforesaid he did not disclose to the Collector Agrarian that the land in dispute had been already declared surplus and was under the tenancy of Anant Ram for a long time. No notice of the proceedings culminating in the order aforesaid, was ever issued to Anant Ram. The Collector, however, while passing orders dated 24.6.1976 made it clear that the area of the landowner which was already declared surplus under the Act of 1953 would remain intact. Anant Ram thus moved an application on 6.8.1981 for the allotment of surplus area comprised in the khasra number referred to above. The Collector Agrarian before whom the matter came up vide order dated 16.9.1982 dismissed the application of Anant Ram on the ground that the application for allotment should have been moved within one year of the enforcement of Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972. Aggrieved, Anand Ram filed an appeal through his son before the Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala as by that time Anant Ram had become mentally unsound. The appeal was, however, dismissed on 9.11.1983. Still aggrieved, a revision was preferred before the Financial commissioner which too, was dismissed on 23.6.1988. This order was sought to be reviewed but the application moved to obtain the said relief was also dismissed on 14.5.1991. It is these orders, as indicated in the earlier part of judgment that have been challenged by way of present writ petition.

Learned counsel appearing for petitioners contends that the authorities dealing with the matter failed to consider that the right of sitting tenant, be it under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act or udner Punjab Land Reforms Act, is sacrosanct. While dealing with the case, the authorities rather chose to get into the technicalities than on merits of the case. The application filed by petitionertenants was misconstrued as it was never mentioned therein that the same was for the purchase under Section 15(1) of the Punjab Land Reforms Act. On the other hand, it was for allotment of land. Further, the limitation for making application within a specified period was not mandatory and in any case narrow interpretation of the provisions of Utilisation of surplus Area Scheme, 1973, should not have been adopted by the authorities, contends the learned counsel.

The cause of petitioners has been opposed and in the written statement that has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 1, facts have not been disputed but the prayer is for dismissing the petitioner by reiterating the grounds that were taken into consideration by the authorities for negating the claim of petitionertenants.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the records of the case, I am of the considered view that the points raised by learned counsel for petitioners have substance and, therefore, this petition must succeed. It is not disputed while passing order dated June 24, 1976, the Collector (Agrarian), Anandpur Sahib had not heard petitioners. It has also not been denied that Anand Ram was tenant on the area which was declared surplus under the provisions of Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953. Petitioners, thus, could not be bound by the order dated June 24, 1976 passed by the Collector, Agrarian, holding that big landowner had no surplus area and, thus, no further action was required to be taken in the matter. The perusal of the application submitted by Anant Ram (Annexure P2) clearly shows that the same was for allotment of surplus land and not for purchase as wrongly mentioned by the authorities dealing with the matter. In the order passed by the Collector, Agrarian, (Annexure P3) it is once again mentioned that he was dealing with the application for allotment of surplus land to its tenant and the land involved was measuring 5 kanals 12 marlas bearing Khatoni No. 66/20 situated at village Bela Dhiani, HB No. 24, Tehsil Anandpur Sahib, District Ropar. In view of the facts that have been mentioned above, it is wholly understandable as to how this application was considered for purchase of land under Section 15(1) of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972. When even the Financial Commissioner in his order dated June 23, 1988 mentioned that it was a case of purchase under the provisions of 1972 Act, an application for review of aforesaid order was made, which, as noticed above, too, was dismissed. However, while disposing of the application aforesaid, it was mentioned that the application was not in formI appended to the Punjab Utilisation of Surplus Area Scheme, 1973 and even in the appeal it was nowhere mentioned that the application filed by tenant was for allotment of land and not for the purchase under the provisions of 1972 Act. It has also been observed that the application was made to Collector and not to the Circle Revenue Officer and for that reason as well the same was incompetent. The perusal of the impugned orders would, thus, manifest that far from dealing with the case of petitioners on merits, it was dealt on technicalities. Even while dealing with the matter on such technicalities, the factual position was not taken into consideration. As observed earlier, the application was filed for allotment of land and not for purchased thereof. In the application, the word `purchase'' has not been mentioned even once and the heading of the application clearly suggests that it was for allotment of land. If the application was filed before the Collector and the jurisdiction to deal with the same was with the Circle Revenue Officer, then in that event the application should have been returned to the tenant to present it in an appropriate forum and on that count alone the application could not be dismissed. Once again, if the application was not in formI appended to the 1973 scheme, petitioners could have been so told. It was then for the petitioners to consider as to whether they are to amend the application or to file afresh on the same cause of action after withdrawing the first one. This course was, admittedly not adopted, thus, resulting into miscarriage of justice.

The only other point which has been canvassed by the learned counsel appearing for landowner is that even if the application was to be treated for allotment of land and not for purchase thereof, the same had to be submitted within three months of the commencement of the Scheme or within such extended period as may, for reasons to be recorded, be allowed by the Circle Revenue Officer. The point raised by learned counsel has no merit. It is not disputed that even if no application is made by the concerned tenant, the matter can be even taken suomoto by the concerned authorities as also that the land declared surplus under the provisions of 1953 Act has to be allotted in the view of the provisions contained in 1973 scheme. Assuming that in a given case the land had been declared surplus under the provisions of 1953 Act and on which land there was an old tenant and such tenant never makes an application for allotment, would it be that the authorities would never deal with the matter when they are enjoined to do so and allot it to the persons, who are entitled to the same. If the authorities have necessarily to deal with such a case then limitation of three months prescribed under the Scheme for making such application by the tenant concerned, would be of no meaning and consequence. In such a case, narrow interpretation on the provisions of 1973 Scheme would defeat the very purpose of scheme which, as referred to above, recognised the right of a tenant to get allotment of atleast his permissible area in preference to others.

For the reasons mentioned above, this petition is allowed. Orders, Annexure P6 and P8 are quashed. The case is, however, remitted to the circle Revenue Officer, Anandpur Sahib to deal with the case of petitioners on merits and dispose of the same within a period of three months from the receipt of copy of this order. Parties are, however, left to bear their own costs.

Before I part with this judgment, I would like to observe that the matter was not decided on merits by the authorities below. The merits of the case have been gone into while disposing of the present petition only or the purpose of deciding this petition and, therefore, any observation made on merits by this Court, would not be construed as an expression of opinion on the same. The authorities concerned shall deal with the matters of the case now and would go into the questions as to whether the tenant was actually holding on to the land which was declared surplus under the provisions of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 as also, as to whether the area under his occupation could, under the provisions of law, be his permissible area. They shall also decide the question as to whether it is the tenant who has preferential right or someone else is more preferred. Parties through their lawyers have been directed to appear before the Circle Revenue Officer, Anandpur Sahib on 15.12.1993.