Mulkh Raj vs Financial Commissioner, Haryana

S.S. Kang, J.

Nanak Chand, father of Mulkh Raj, petitioner owned 136 standard acres and 10 units of land on April 15, 1953, as also on February 1, 1955. Out of this land he transferred 997 Kanals 12 Marlas to his son Mulkh Raj, petitioner, on August 3, 1960, in compliance with a Civil Court decree. Earlier Nanak Chand had selected his permissible area and had filed a statutory form before the revenue authorities for reserving his land as required by section 5(1) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'').

On January 30, 1967, Duni Chand, respondent No. 5, to this petition, made an application under section 18 of the Act for purchase of 56 Kanals of land against Mulkh Raj. He claimed that the abovementioned land was under his cultivation for more than six years ; it belonged to a big landowner and was included in his permissible area. Saudagar Singh, Patwari, appeared and supported the assertions of Duni Chand, respondent, regarding the ownership of the land of Nanak Chand and transfer of a part of this land in favour of Mulk Raj, Hari Chand, Reader to Tehsildar, Fatehabad, was examined by Mulkh Raj, landowner. He produced the reservation form submitted by Nanak Chand. Duni Chand stated that he was cultivating the abovementioned land for the last more than 12/13 years and that Mulkh Raj was a big landowner and the land had not been included in his reserved area. Relying upon this, the Assistant Collector allowed this application. Aggrieved, Mulkh Raj filed an appeal which was dismissed by the Collector on March 24, 1969. His revision before the Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala, met the same fate and was dismissed by him on October 25, 1969. The second revision to the Financial Commissioner failed on May 21, 1975. Dissatisfied with these orders, Mulkh Raj filed this petition.

Mr. Ram Rang, learned counsel for the petitioner, has raised two contentions :

(i) The surplus Area case of Nanak Chand had not been decided finally and was still pending adjudication when the purchase application was illegally allowed :

(ii) Nanak Chand was a necessary party and he was not impleaded. Both the contentions deserve serious consideration but merit dismissal.

It is clear from the combined reading of the statements of Saudagar Singh, Patwari, and Hari Chand, Reader that Nanak Chand who was a big landowner had selected his permissible area and had even put in reservation form as required by section 5(1) of the Act. Once the landowner has submitted his form denoting his reserved area, the tenant can, if he otherwise fulfils the statutory qualification, file an application under section 18 of the Act. It is not necessary that the application for purchase should be kept pending till the decision of the Surplus Area case by the highest Court. In the very nature of things that may take a number of years. The Act forms an integral part of the socioeconomic legislation enacted to render distributive justice to the havenot and underprivileged. One of the major objects of the Act is to provide land to the tiller. If the construction sought to be put, on the provisions and the scheme of the Act by Mr. Ram Rang is accepted, it will defeat the very purpose of the Act. Section 18 of the Act provides that a tenant can purchase the land of his tenancy from a big landowner which land has not been included in the reserved area of the latter. It is apparent from the language employed in this provision that it is not necessary that the Surplus Area case of the landlord may have been decided before the purchase application can be allowed. Once the landowner has put in his selection in the reservation form he cannot make any change therein except with the consent of his tenants. It has been almost a consistent view of this Court that if a big landlord had reserved his permissible area, then the eligible tenant can purchase the land which he is otherwise eligible to do so and which is not included in the reserved area and there was no need to keep the purchase application in abeyance till the decision of the Surplus Area case of the landowner. See in this connection Smt. Nathi v. The Financial Commissioner, Punjab, 1973 PLJ 268. Gurbux Singh v. The Financial Commissioner, Taxation, Punjab and others, 1976 PLJ 322, Banwari Lal v. The Financial Commissioner, Haryana, 1980 PLJ 97, and Balwant Ram v. The Financial Commissioner, Taxation and others, 1980 PLJ 660. Mr. Ram Rang relied on two Division Bench decisions of this Court i.e. Jia Ram and others v. Gobind Ram and others, 1971 PLJ 766, and Madho Dass v. Medha and another, 1971 PLJ 782. They are not applicable to the facts of this case. In both these cases the landowners had not made reservations nor the Collector had made selections for them under section 5B. In these circumstances it had been held that the tenants were not entitled to purchase the land under section 18 till the landowners'' Surplus Area case had been decided. Without reservation by the landowner or selection by the Collector under section 5B, it cannot be said which is permissible area.

It has been contended by Mr. Ram Rang that the reservation of land under section 5(1) of the Act is completed only when the Patwari in compliance with the provisions of Rule 5 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Rules''), makes a report after verifying the contents of the reservation form. This had not been done in this case. In support of this contention he relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Gurbax Singh v. The Financial Commissioner, Punjab, 1976 PLJ 31. A Division Bench of this Court had an occasion to examine the ratio of Gurbax Singh''s case (supra) in Gordhan v. Financial Commissioner, Haryana, 1970 PLJ 311. After minutely examining the facts and noticing the statutory provisions it was observed :

"....................On basic principles and on mere reading of rule 5 of the Rules, one thing is clear that once the landlord has done his part by submitting a proper form of reservation under section 5 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, the mere fact that the revenue authorities do not do their duties cannot possibly adversely affect the right of the landlord."

The same very view was taken by S.C. Mital, J. in Gurbux Singh v. The Financial Commissioner, Punjab, 1976 PLJ 322. It is apparent from the motion Bench decision that the nonverification of the reservation form is no hindrance to the tenant to file an application under section 18 of the Act. Nanak Chand had selected his permissible area and has submitted a reservation form and the land in dispute is not comprised in that area. Duni Chand was entitled to purchase the land outside the permissible area of Nanak Chand because he admittedly was a big landowner.

Admittedly, Mulkh Raj was the owner of the land sought to be purchased. He was entitled to get the compensation. Therefore an application had been filed against him. This fact is manifest that Mulkh Raj was not a small landowner. Nanak Chand had transferred about 1000 Kanals of land in his favour which is much beyond the permissible limit. The nonimpleading of Nanak Chand in the purchase application is, therefore, of no consequence.

For the foregoing reasons, I find no merit in this writ petition and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.