Fateh Singh vs The Financial Commissioner, Haryana, Chandigarh and others

J.M. Tandon, J.—Mangla predecessor-in-interest of Fateh Singh Petitioner owned land measuring 94 kanals 10 marlas (about 4-1/2 standard acres) in village Turkyavas, Tehsil Barnaul, district Mohindergarh, Chhotu Respondent No. 4 and Chhaju Respondent No. 5 (now deceased and representative by hit legal representative) occupied this land as tenants (hereafter as tenants). In 1968, the tenants applied for the acquisition of proprietary rights of the land in their occupation u/s 22 of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955 (hereafter the Act), on the ground that they were cultivating it for a period of 12 years preceding 3rd December, 195(sic), when the Patiala and East Punjab States Union Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1953 (President''s Act 8 of 1953) had come into force. Their application was allowed by the Assistant Collector First Grade, Narnaul vide order dated 17th May, 1971 (P-1/A), The landowners filed appeal against the order of the Assistant Collector which was. dismissed by the Collector vide order dated 8th February. 1972 (P-1). The landowners then filed revision which was also dismissed by the Financial Commissioner vide order dated 3rd March, 1975 (P-2). The Petitioner has assailed the orders allowing acquisition of proprietary rights in the land to the tenants in the present writ.

The Learned Counsel for the contesting Respondents has raised a preliminary objection that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on account of delay and laches inasmuch as the impugned order of the Financial Commissioner was passed on 3rd March, 1975 and the writ petition was filed on 17th December, 1975 The contention is without merit. The delay in filing the writ petition is not so inordinate as to justify its dismissal on that ground and more so, after its admission 9 years earlier Another preliminary objection raised is that all parties who had filed revision before the Financial Commissioner were not parties in the present writ petition to start with and the writ petition is liable to fail on this ground. This objection is also without merit. Most of the persons who had filed revision have since been made parties. This apart, the relief which is jointly beneficial for more persons, can be claimed in a writ petition by some of them It is understood that the relief allowed shall ensure for the benefit of all. The writ petition cannot be dismissed on this ground as well.

Mangla was a small landowner. His total land is about 4-1/2 standard acres which is in occupation of the. tenants since 12 years prior to the commencement of the President''s Act, in terms of Section 7-A (2) of the Act. The tenants have been allowed to acquire proprietary rights u/s 22 of the Act.

The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has argued that the tenants could not be allowed to acquire proprietary rights in the land as Mangla landlord was a small landowner. The argument of the Learned Counsel for the tenants is that the tenants could acquire proprietary rights in the land u/s 22 of the Act irrespective of the fact they the landlord was a small landowner.

Section 22 of the Act deals with the acquisition of proprietary rights by tenants. Its Sub-section (1) reads:

Subject to the other provisions contained in this Act, a tenant shall be entitled to acquire from his landowner in respect of the land computing his tenancy the right, title and interest of the landowner in such land (hereinafter referred to as the ''proprietary rights'') in the manner and subject to the conditions hereinafter provided." Section 20 defines ''tenant'' and it reads.-

"In this Chapter, the expression ''tenant'' means a tenant as defined in Clause (k) of Section 2, who is not liable to be ejected-

(a) under Clauses (a) and (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 7A, or

(b) under Clauses (a) and (b) of Sub-section (2) of Section 7A: Provided that this definition shall not apply to a tenant who is to be allotted by the State Government land under the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 7 A of the Act."

The case of the tenants in this writ petition falls u/s 7A(2) which reads:-

7A(2). No tenant, who immediately preceding the commencement of the President''s Act has held any land continuously for a period of twelve years or more under the same landowner or his predecessor in title, shall be ejected on the grounds specified in Sub-section (1)-

(a) from any area of land, if the area under the personal cultivation of the tenant does not exceed fifteen standard acres, or

(b) from an area of fifteen standard acres, if the area under the personal cultivation of the tenant exceeds fifteen standard acres.

Provided that nothing in this Sub-section shall apply to the tenant of a landowner who, both at the commencement of tenancy and the commencement of the President''s Act was a widow, a minor, an unmarried woman, a member of the Armed Forces of the Union or a person incapable of cultivating land by reason of physical or mental infirmity.

The opening words of Section 22(1) are "subject to the other provisions contained in this Act". The contention of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that the right to acquire proprietary rights u/s 22(1) is subject tot other provisions of the Act which provide that a landowner is entitled to retain ownership of his land upto the permissible limit Mangla landlord being a small landowner held ownership of his land within the permissible limit. The tenants, therefore, could not legally acquire proprietary rights in the land of Mangla u/s 22 of the Act. The contention of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner must prevail.

The opening words, "subject to the other provisions contained in this Act" of Section 22(1) are significant and meaningful. The Act does provide that a landowner can retain land upto the prescribed limit. The scheme of the Act it to divest the landowners holding surplus land and utilise the excess for the benefit of landless persons. It is in this context that the opening words of Section 22(1) are to be interpreted. A harmonious interpretation thereof does lead to an irresistible conclusion that a smell landowner is to be left undisturbed and his tenant cannot be allowed to purchase the land under his tenancy u/s 22 rendering the landowner landless. A different interpretation favorable to the tenants would be destructive of the Act and would defeat the very object thereof. This point was considered in Basant Kaur v. The State of Punjab 1976 P.L.J. 38 (S.B.), and it was held that if the land is not under the personal cultivation of the landowner, the land owned by him shall not be reduced below the permissible limit and the tenant or tenants in possession of the land would not be permitted to acquire proprietary rights therein, if the land occupied by them is within the permissible limit. The learned Judge followed the observations of their Lordships of the Supreme Court made in Smt. Bhagwan Kaur v. The State of Punjab 1970 P.L.J. 202.

In Smt. Bhagwan Kaur''s case (supra) their Lordships made the following observations about Section 22 of the Act:-

No Objection was raised before the Tehsildar, the Collector or the Financial Commissioner that the Respondents were not tenants within the definition in Section 20. During the course of discussion it, however, appeared that the inequity which has been noticed by the High Court may perhaps be obviated by giving close attention to the definition of the word "tenant" and applying it to Section 22. If this definition is applied it would appear that not only a tenant who held land which had been reserved by the landowner for his personal cultivation but also a tenant of a landowner who owns 30 standard acres or less of land and the land falls within his permissible limit, would be debarred from making an application u/s 22. It may be, though we do not decide the point in this ease that a landowner who has not reserved u/s 5 may at one stage after some tenants have exercised option u/s 22 fall within the description in Section 7A(1) (b) of the Act.

The observations of their Lordships reproduced above envisage that a tenant of a small landowner holding land within the permissible limit cannot be allowed to acquire proprietary rights u/s 22 of the Act. The tenants in the present writ petition are not entitled to acquire proprietary rights of the land under their tenancy u/s 22 of the Act because their landlord (Mangla) was a small landowner holding land within the permissible limit irrespective of the fact that they occupied it continuously for a period of 12 years preceding the commencement of the President''s Act. The impugned orders of the authorities to the contrary allowing the tenants to purchase land cannot be sustained.

In the result the writ is allowed and the impugned orders of the authorities allowing the tenants to acquire proprietary rights in the land in dispute are quashed. No order as to costs.