Dewan Chand vs Pushp Lata

R.C. Kapila, F.C.

This revision petition under Section 24 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 read with Section 84 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 has been preferred against the order, dated the 29th May, 1981 of the Additional Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur, who dismissed the revision of the petitioner.

The facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner applied for the purchase of land measuring 35 Kanals 12 marlas, situated in the area of village Sodhi Nagar, Tehsil and District Ferozepur, belonging to the respondentslandowners on the ground that the petitioner had been in continuous cultivating possession of the land for more than six years and the respondents were big landowners and the land in dispute did not form part of their reserved area. The Assistant Collector I Grade, Ferozepur, after recording the evidence of both the parties examining the documents, rejected the purchase application on the 21st August, 1974. Aggrieved by this order, Dewan Chand went in appeal before the Collector Ferozepur, who dismissed the appeal on the 9th December, 1974 holding as under :

"I have considered the assertion made by the learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the record as well as the Supreme Court ruling as cited by the learned Assistant Collector I Grade in his order under appeal. The Supreme Court ruling 1974 PLJ 74 was pronounced on 21.1.1974 and was reported in the issue for the month of February, 1974 whereas the appellant closed his evidence on 22.4.1974. Thus, the Supreme Court ruling was pronounced much before the close of the evidence by the appellant. So, the assertion of the learned counsel for the appellant that the Supreme Court ruling was pronounced after the close of the evidence by the appellant and, therefore, the appellant could not lead evidence in this respect, has no force."

I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties on 2nd May, 1983. The learned counsel for the petitioner asserted that the petitioner has been a tenant on the land in dispute since 1962 and he applied for the purchase of this land in the year 1974. The land in dispute is not a part of the reserved area of the landowner. The Assistant Collector I Grade, Ferozepur wrongly rejected the application of the petitioner on the basis of 1974 PLJ page 74 that a tenant inducted by landlord after 15.4.1953 on surplus area is not entitled to purchase tenancy land under Section 18 of the Punjab Security Land Tenures Act, 1953. The learned counsel averred that the law is settled on this point in Sahib Ram''s case reported in 1970 PLJ 28, wherein it is held that the minimum period of six years should have been completed at the time when the application for purchase by the tenant is made, and it is not necessary that he should have been a tenant on the land on the 15th April, 1953. The learned counsel further contended that according to 1981 PLJ 413. three conditions must be fulfilled for the purchase of tenancy land : (a) he should be a tenant of a big landowner, (b) he should have been in continuous occupation of the land comprised in tenancy for a minimum period of six years, and (c) the land which he desires to purchase should not be included in the reserved area of the landowner. The petitioner fulfill all those three conditions and is entitled to purchase the land. The counsel averred that 1974 PLJ 94 is not applicable in this case. This judgment is only applicable when the purchase in favour of the tenant is collusive. All these points have been discussed in detail in 1981 PLJ 177, according to which it is not necessary that the land must be under tenancy on the 15th April, 1953. The counsel urged that the revision of the petitioner be accepted as the petitioner is entitled to purchase tenancy land.

In rebuttal, the learned counsel for the respondents averred that all the lower Courts had held the petitioner not entitled to purchase the land in dispute. In 1974 PLJ 74 it has been specifically held that tenant inducted by landlord after the 15th April, 1953 on surplus area is not entitled to purchase the tenancy land under Section 18. The petitioner was never a tenant on the 15th April, 1953. He has admittedly been a tenant only since 1962 and thus is not entitled to purchase the land. In the end the learned counsel for respondents prayed that the revision is without any force and deserved to be dismissed.

I have carefully considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record before me. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show any ruling of the Supreme Court wherein the law laid down in the ruling reported as 1974 PLJ 74 might have been changed. Also it stands to reason that allowing tenants inducted by the big landowners after the land reforms legislation came into force, to purchase land in their tenancies would practically nullify the Government scheme to resettle landless agricultural workers and members of the weaker sections among agriculturists who have very small holdings, on the land declared surplus as a result of the implementation of land ceiling laws. I have, therefore, no good reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of the lower Courts and I, therefore, dismiss the petition.

To be communicated.