Mohan Lal . vs Nand Singh and another .

Usha Vohra, F.C.

These two revision petitions under Section 18 of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972 and Section 24 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 read with Section 84 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 are directed against the order dated the 27th July, 1981 of the Additional Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur, whereby he dismissed the appeals of the petitioners. Since the facts and the issues involved in both the cases are similar, it is expedient to dispose them of with a single order, a copy of which shall be placed on each file.

The facts are that respondents filed two separate applications in form `J'' in 1974 one against Mohal Lal, petitioner for the purchase of land measuring 28 Kanals 10 Marlas comprised in Khasra Nos. 15M/23 (7 Kanals) 24 (8 Kanals), 25 (8 Kanals) 365 (5 Marlas), 27M/5/1 (2 Kanals 2 Marlas), 4/1 (l Kanal 16 Marlas), 3/1 (l Kanals 7 Marlas) and the second against Krishna Kumari, petitioner, for purchase of 14 Kanals 5 Marlas bearing Khasra Nos. 14M/21 (8 Kanals), 28M 1/1 (2 Kanals 18 Marlas), 2/1 (3 Kanals 7 Marlas) situated in village Khuban, tehsil Fazilka. The said applications were dismissed by the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, by his order dated 26.9.1977 on the ground that the land in dispute had been shown as surplus area and some of it had been shown as the reserved area of the landowner and that the respondents were not tenants on the land on the 15th April, 1953. Feeling aggrieved, the respondents filed appeals before the Collector Ferozepur, who accepted the same by his order dated 4.8.1978, on the ground that the respondents were holding tenancies within the tenants'' permissible area for more than six years. He, therefore, held that the respondents were entitled to purchase the tenancy area excepting Killas Nos.23 and 24 of Rectangle No. 15 which were part of the reserved area of Mohan Lal, petitioner. The petitioners challenged the aforesaid order of the Collector in two separate appeals before the Additional Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur which were dismissed by him by his order dated 27.7.1981. This order of the Additional Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, has been impugned before me in this revision.

I have heard the counsel for both parties. The counsel for the petitioner urged that the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Abohar after considering the evidence on the file had come to the conclusion that some of the land sought to be purchased by the respondents had been declared surplus by the Collector (Agrarian), Abohar and some of it was reserved area of the landowner. Following the Supreme Court Judgment reported as 1974 PLJ 74, the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade rightly rejected the purchase application of respondents by his order dated 26.9.1977 as it was not proved that the respondents were tenants on the land on 15.4.1953. The order of the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade was reversed by the Collector, Ferozepur by his order dated 4.8.1978 on the ground that the surplus area case of Mohan Lal petitioner having been finalised after consolidation by the Collector (Agrarian), Ferozepur by his order dated 17.4.1968 there was no surplus area with him and the respondents who were holding their tenancies for more than six years on the permissible area were entitled to purchase the area in dispute after excluding Killa Nos. 23 and 24 in Rectangle No. 15, which fell under the reserved area of the landowner, Mohan Lal. As the respondents were not tenants on the land on 15.4.1953 and had been inducted thereafter, they were not eligible to avail the right to purchase the land under Section 18 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act or Section 15 of the Punjab Land Reforms Act. Furthermore as the respondents had not deposited even the first instalment for the purchase of the land, the orders of the Collector and the Additional Commissioner were liable to be quashed on this score alone. Krishna Kumari petitioner being a small landowner, the land which was transferred to her by her husband in pursuance of a Civil Court decree could not be ignored in purchase proceedings and in support of his contention the counsel for the petitioners cited 1981 PLJ 523.

Refuting the above arguments it has been pleaded by the counsel for the respondents that before the respondents became tenants, the land was under the cultivation of their father, Dharam Singh now deceased. Mohan Lal, petitioner was a big landowner and his surplus area case was finalised by the Collector, Agrarian, Ferozepur after consolidation by his order dated 17.4.1968 whereby land measuring 39 standard acres l unit was declared as tenants'' permissible area after allowing the landowner, Mohan Lal 30 standard acres as his reserved area, there was, thus, no surplus area with him. The respondents had been in continuous possession of the land for over six years prior to the making of applications in 1974 for the purchase of land. The transfer of land by Mohan Lal, to his wife Krishna Kumari through a Civil Court decree in 1957 could not affect the rights of the respondents, who were holding tenancies within the tenant''s permissible area. It was further contended that while processing an application of the tenant for purchase of land, the following three ingredients had to be taken into consideration :

(i) the landowner should be a big landowner;

(ii) the area sought to be purchased should not form part of the reserved area; and

(iii) the tenancy must have been for six years before the purchase application is submitted.

In the instant case, it was undisputed that Mohan Lal was a big landowner and area measuring 39 standard acres 1 unit was declared as tenant''s permissible area after allowing him 30 standard acres, as his reserved area by the Collector Agrarian Ferozepur vide his orders dated 17.4.1968. The continuous cultivating possession of the respondents was proved from the Khasra Girdawaris from 196566 upto 1973 Kharif. The Civil Court decree was obtained by Krishna Kumari petitioner simply with a view to defeat the declaring of tenant''s permissible area, the Civil Court decree could not affect the respondents. In support of this contention, the respondents'' counsel cited 1981 PLJ 177 which was based on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sahib Ram etc. v. Financial Commissioner Revenue reported in 1970 PLJ 282. The judgment of the Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Punjab dated 11.12.1984 in R.O.R. Nos. 522 and 523 of 198182 was also cited in support of the claim of the respondents. As the respondents fulfilled all the conditions mentioned in Section 18 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, the Collector Ferozepur, rightly allowed their purchase application.

I have carefully heard the counsel for the parties and also scrutinised the record. In the revision petition before me the main point which has been urged is that the respondents have not been able to prove on records that they were tenants on the land in dispute on the crucial date i.e. 15.4.1953. Therefore, as they were not tenants as on 15.4.1953 they were not entitled to purchase the land under Section 18 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act. It is clear that the respondents were in cultivating possession of the land for a period of more than six years from 196566 onwards. The respondents prior to the date of application in form `J'' for purchase of land in February 1974 were already in cultivating possession of Khasra Nos. 15/23, 24, 25, 364, 27/5, 4/1, 3/1 and 14/21, 28/M1/1 and 2/1. From the copies of the Khasra Girdawaris Ex P.3, P.4 and P.5 which have been produced, it is clear that respondents were in continuous cultivating possession during 196566, 196667, 196768, 196869, 196970, 197071, 197172, 197273 and 1973 Kharif. It has already been held by the Supreme Court in Sahib Ram etc v. Financial Commissioner, Punjab as reported in 1970 PLJ 282 that in order to claim a right of purchase as against the landowner under Section 18(1)(i) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, the minimum period of six years should have been completed at the time when the application for purchase by the tenants is made and it is not necessary that he should have been a tenant on the land on 15.4.1953 when the Act came into force, provided the other conditions are satisfied, such a tenant will be entitled to purchase the land. This is also supported by 1981 PLJ 177. There is no requirement of Section 18 that a tenant before he can purchase the land under his tenancy must start as a tenant prior to 15.4.1953.

In so far as the Civil Court decree in favour of Smt. Krishna Kumari is concerned I have perused the decreesheet which has been placed on record. In this decreesheet the only Khasra No. which is common with reference to the revision petition filed before me is 1182/366 measuring 2 Bighas 19 Biswas only. It is further observed that the petitioner Mohan Lal in case State v. Mohan Lal etc. for assessment of surplus area before the Collector, Fazilka did not produce the Civil Court decree of 1957 transferring any land to his wife Krishna Kumari. On the contrary, another decree from the Civil Court in favour of sale to Chhail Behari Lal, Harbu Lal and Sikander Lal tenant transferees etc. was produced, which after spot enquiries by the Circle Revenue Officer was rejected as collusive by the Collector, Fazilka vide his order dated 5.7.1963 and some area was declared surplus with Mohan Lal. After consolidation of holdings, the Collector Agrarian Ferozepur on 17.4.1968 held that Mohan Lal petitioner''s total land holding as landowner was 69 standard acres 1 unit. After allowing 30 standard acres as permissible area for the landowner and 39 standard acres 1 unit. After allowing 30 standard acres as permissible area for the landowner and 39 standard acres 1 unit as permissible area of the tenants, he pronounced that no surplus area was available for utilisation. No Civil Court decree of 1957 in favour of Smt. Krishna Kumari was produced before the Collector Agrarian, Fazilka. The total holding of the landowner i.e. petitioner Mohan Lal, ignoring the alienation, had to be taken into account for determination of permissible and surplus area. The transfer on the basis of a Civil Court decree to Smt. Krishna Kumari has to be ignored.

After careful consideration of the facts, I uphold the orders of the Collector, Ferozepur passed on 4.8.1978 and of the Additional Commissioner, Ferozepur dated 27.7.1981. They have taken the correct view. The request of the respondents for purchase of their tenancy areas after excluding the area reserved for the landowner, is allowed. I do not find any force in the revision petition which are hereby dismissed.